Monday 14 October 2024

Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Incontinence Pad Review

 *For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology


 

Summary

As the third part of our series covering incontinence pads, I’ll be reviewing the Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum. Like the Depend with its Depend for Men Guard, Tena was also an early mover in introducing male-specific incontinence pads to the market and is quite competitive with the two brands often appearing alongside one another in retailers. Both product lines feature more absorbent “guards” and lower absorbency “shields” for managing different levels of leakage. Having reviewed several different Tena diaper products, including the Tena Slip Active Fit Maxi and Tena Flex among others, I was interested to see how their incontinence pad products might perform in comparison.

Notably, these guards come individually packaged in a black plastic wrapper but have a cloth-like backsheet. The fastener follows the standard incontinence pad design with a single adhesive tape fastener down the middle and works with close-fitting underwear like briefs or boxer-briefs. I found the Tena pad to be considerably thinner than the Depend for Men or Lindor 5D pads, however, it also had a larger area of coverage and a surprisingly high level of absorbency. Like most other male guards it won’t work for bedwetting and should only really be used for daily sitting/standing usage because the bottom padding narrows and won’t capture moisture effectively when you’re lying down. It’s also only really suited to a light-moderate level of incontinence and won’t handle significant surges of moisture, which would be better handled with diapers or protective underwear. In terms of pricing, these often come out cheaper than the less absorbent Tena Shields, and given how discreet these are, some may choose them even when dealing with minor drops and dribbles instead of the more expensive shields. I was particularly impressed with the width of padding coverage and had full confidence that no matter how I shifted the Tena Guard would capture every drip. I’d recommend them for those dealing with light-moderate daily drips and dribbles.


Key Features:

  • Cloth-like backsheet
  • Wide triangular padding
  • Adhesive tape fastener down the middle

Pros:

  • Compact and easy to apply
  • Great for light incontinence
  • Very comfortable/discreet
  • Low unit price

Cons:

  • Little absorbency
  • Not suitable for overnight wear
  • Won’t work for bowel incontinence

Product Details

The Tena Men Absorbent Maximum Guard comes in a one-size fits all. Consequently no other sizes are listed here and this review should be universally applicable for the product line.


Packaging

Brand: Tena
Manufacturer: Essity HMS North America Inc.
Origin: Slovakia
Units Per Bag: 48
Cost Per Unit: $
Dimensions (L x W x H): 28 cm (11") x 10 cm (3.9") x 14 cm (5.5")
Weight: 0.83 kg (1.8 lbs)
Advertised Absorbency: Maximum

1.1 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Packaging

Pad

Backsheet: Cloth-like (non-woven)
Wetness Indicator: No
Standing Inner Leak Guards: No
Leg Gathers: No
Product Style: Male Guard
Refastenable Tabs: No
Number of Tapes: 1
Repositionable Tabs: No
Outer Color: Gray
Inner Color: White (blue dot pattern)
Folded Thickness: 1.2 cm (0.47")
Folded Length: 12 cm (4.7")
Dry Weight: 20 g (0.71 oz)
Fragrance: No
Pad Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 25.5 cm (10") x 22 cm (8.7") x 14 cm (5.5") x 8 cm (3.2")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Triangular, Triangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 24 cm (9.5") x 20 cm (7.9") x 12 cm (4.7") x 6 cm (2.4")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 4 cm (1.6") x 13 cm (5.1") x -3.0 cm (-1.2") x 0 cm (0")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Triangular, Triangular
Total Padding Area: 392 cm2 (61 in2)
Tape (W x L): 3 cm (1.2") x 25 cm (9.8")

1.2 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Pad


Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 192 ml (6.8 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 195 ml (6.9 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (17 s, 15 s, 29 s, 25 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 3 cm (1.2")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 100%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.49 ml / cm2 (0.11 oz / in2)
Press Out Volume: 3 ml (0.11 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 8

During the lab test the Tena Men demonstrated strong resistance to surface dampness. There was no sign of dampness after the first wetting and almost none on the second or third wetting. It wasn’t until the 4th wetting that there was anything substantial. This still falls short of the Lindor 5D, but for a product with such thin padding it was pretty remarkable. In real world wear I didn’t find surface dampness to be too much of an issue when wet for the relatively low volumes of moisture the pad should handle.




2.1 Wet vs Dry Pad After Capacity Test

 

2.2 Used vs Unused Padding After Capacity Test

"Real World" Absorbency Tests

Posture Tests


Standing-Sitting

Total Absorbed Volume: 230 ml (8.1 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing)
Leaked After Sitting: Yes
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 92%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.59 ml / cm2 (0.13 oz / in2)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 1 (Male Guard Adjusted: 8)
To better assess the maximum capacity before leakage in the Tena Guard I did a test to push it to the point of leakage when standing with a regular wetting. As I did before when the Depend and Lindor 5D guards, I combined it with the Carer M67 underwear to better assess feasibility as a combined protection. It was clearly not going to absorb the full wetting but how far it got could be a good performance indicator. On the wetting while standing the padding quickly filled but it wasn’t particularly noticeable and I couldn’t tell at what point that any moisture from the padding leaked into the underwear. At some point the M67 started leaking a bit, but it was much later than I expected and I suspect this combination might be fine for a moderate wetting. Of course, it was nowhere near as absorbent as the Lindor 5D, but surprisingly the Tena Guard absorbed a significant amount more than the Depend Guard even with a thinner padding. There was also a small amount of unused padding at the end of the test, but most of the padding was consumed, suggesting a decent amount of wicking. This pad will clearly handle any light leakage during daily wear and possibly some degree of moderate leakage.


Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 130 ml (4.6 oz)
Total Wettings: 1
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 50%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.38 ml / cm2 (0.09 oz / in2)

Lying Down Rating: 1 (Male Guard Adjusted:7)

The Tena Guard performed substantially worse when tested while lying down and clearly isn’t designed for overnight leakage. Once again, it was combined with the Carer M67 to assess performance as combined protection. During the wetting the Tena Guard quickly demonstrated pooling which rapidly leaked into the underlying Carer padding. Yet, there was still a large amount of dry padding at the top of the pad so it was obviously far from its theoretical capacity. It ended up performing a little better than the Depend Guard, but not enough that I’d expect to have a significantly different result. The primary benefit in this underwear is that the wide range of padding could capture moisture when lying at various angles vs the typical rectangular padding. If you’re looking for an overnight pad there are clearly better products on the market.

2.3 Pattern of Used vs Unused Padding Test Stand/Sit (right) Lying Down (left)


Daily Wear and Bedwetting

I have to admit, I was initially a bit sceptical of the Tena Guard at first glance. This pad is quite thin and doesn’t feature leg gathers like the Depend Guard or Standing Inner Leak Guards like the Lindor 5D pad. Instead it’s shaped as a large triangle with flat edges and wings that fold inward. Like most other incontinence pads this pad is fastened to the wearer’s underwear using an absorbent tape that runs down the middle. Also, in line with other male guards, the Tena Guard is really only meant for light incontinence and will not handle full wettings, so it is not suitable for managing bedwetting. The shape having a very narrow area below the crotch also means it probably wouldn’t be suitable for those with light overnight incontinence like dribbling. This is very much a pad to be used in daily wear for those with regular drips and dribbles. While it lacks some of the leak guard features of other incontinence pads I feel it more than makes up for that by having a very large area of padding coverage. This will give you a far higher degree of confidence in avoiding leaks since it covers most of the front of your underwear with padded area; in fact I found the pad even extended beyond my regular brief-style underwear. Because of the extensive coverage it may be better suited to boxer-brief style underwear, though it should work fine for regular brief-style as well. In terms of absorbency I found this pad to be a step above the Depend Guard, but not quite at the level of the Lindor 5D. It was more than sufficient for my light daily drips and dribbles, probably overkill if anything but I did appreciate the extensive padding coverage as I never had any drips go around the pad (it caught everything). In terms of durability, the Tena Guard is top notch and highly resistant to wear and tear. Also it is about as discreet as you could possibly get for such a product. Because of the way it wrapped my underwear I never noticed any hint of it when out and about, barely felt it in fact. I never heard a hint of noise from it at any time during testing too. If you need a well-rounded male light-moderate incontinence pad for daily usage I’d highly recommend giving the Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum a try.


Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 0 (N/A)

This product is not designed for use with bowel incontinence.


Wear & Tear Tests


Fitting

The Tena Guard has a triangular shape with the padding getting wider the further up you go and narrow as it gets between the legs. This design is rather unique as most incontinence pads have a rectangular shape to them. The wings of the triangle actually have a folded shape for storage and I also found this makes it better wrap the wearer. This pad also has a cloth-like backsheet, which is also relatively rare for incontinence pads. However, the fastener is pretty standard with a single adhesive tape running down the middle that can be fastened to the wearer’s underwear after removing the paper cover.

3.1 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Fastener
 

Ease-of-Use Rating: 9

Tena Men Guards are quite user friendly. Each pad is individually wrapped in a black plastic wrapping for convenient storage. When you’re ready to apply it you can pull apart the seam at the back of the plastic wrapping. The pad has a single vertical fold and the wings are folded inward giving it an initially rectangular look. It’s generally easy to apply this pad, but the width can make it a bit more of a challenge to get a perfect fit. I found with regular brief-style underwear the padding may actually extend past the underwear in spots due to the width, so it may be better suited for wear with boxer-brief style underwear or meshpants. In any case it won’t work with loose boxer underwear like any other incontinence pad. The pad has a snug fit in the wearer’s underwear and because it was pre-folded it can actually create a bit of a wrapping. Other than that, I found the adhesive worked well and didn’t lose adhesiveness over time, nor was it difficult to remove when it came time to finally change. The paper covering the tape also has helpful instructions to assist with orientation for those unfamiliar with it. I was never quite sure how low or high to place the pad in my underwear for ideal fit, but it’s large enough that I feel that placement may be less important than other products.

3.2 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Fit
 

Comfort


Comfort Rating (dry): 10

I rank the Tena Guard right up there with the Lindor 5D when it comes to dry comfort. The padding is exceptionally soft and has a clear edge over the Depend Guard. It has a much wider fit but also thinner and less rigid padding than the Depend Guard, which I feel makes it more skin friendly. I also feel the wider coverage was another major benefit in the Tena Guard; it has wide wings and no rough edges. I barely noticed it all when I was wearing it as it just blended into my regular underwear. This was particularly true when first applied, though like the Depend Guard some parts become more noticeable over time. My only real issue was that the bottom of the pad is a bit narrow and can shift in a way that causes some skin irritation. It was still much softer and better than the Depend on in that regard, very close to the level of the Lindor 5D.


Comfort Rating (wet): 10

When it came to wet comfort the Tena Guard was outstanding; very different from what I expected given the relatively thin padding. It swells somewhat but not to a huge amount when wet and remains soft. Given the volume of absorbency it’s rated at I was never going to get close to a level where this pad felt wet with my typical daily drips or dribbles but I did try pressing it a bit for testing. What I found was that it will need to be nearly saturated before you’d really start to notice the dampness. When wet it continues to feel breathable due to the design and isn’t susceptible to clumping or tearing to any real degree. I also had no issue with the tape shifting in any way. For its level of absorbency I can’t really think of anything I’d add to improve the wet comfort of this pad, thus the perfect score.

3.3 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Topsheet and Backsheet

Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 2.8% (topsheet), 5% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 4 shakes to deterioration


Durability Rating (dry): 9
When it came to dry durability the Tena Guard was highly durable with very little obvious deterioration during the dry durability test. It showed now sign of wearing down after extensive activity and exercise and held its form for an extended time. All I noticed through this was just some minor shifts in padding at its peripheral but no obvious clumping or tearing. I also found that once taped the tape itself will retain a strong grip on the underwear and never had any issues with it shifting out of place. That said, the wings aren’t firmly attached so you will find they may shift from time to time. I rank it similar to the Depend Guard in this regard, though even if both of them were held firmly with their tapes I had less perception of the Tena pad shifting, perhaps due to its compact padding.


Durability Rating (wet): 10

The Tena Guard demonstrated a strong degree of wet durability. Throughout my tests I never had any issues with the padding clumping or tearing when wet. It held its form in the same condition as its dry state in all conditions. I also found the grip on the tape to be unaffected by the dampness and it never lost its adhesiveness. In terms of padding swelling I only noticed a slight swelling and it seemed good at distributing it through the padding. I think this pad would be perfectly durable for active wear, both when wet or dry and I feel it has a slight edge over other tested guards in this regard.

3.4 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests


Profile

Profile Discretion Rating: 10 (Male Guard Adjusted: 10)

The Tena Guard is about as discreet as you could possibly ask for as far as incontinence products go. I found I could wear this pad under pretty much anything and it had no obvious profile. The padding is thinner than most guards on the market. I’d say it’s comparable with the very light men’s shields in terms of discretion even at this higher level of absorbency.

4.1 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right) 


Noise

Noise Rating: 10

As was the case with all other male guards, the Tena Guard was completely silent. There wasn’t so much as a hint of noise from this and I’d even give it an edge over the Depend Guard in this respect even if I rank both perfectly. There’s no question that you could wear anything and make any movement and no one will hear a sound from this pad. The only time it’s likely to be noticeable is when you’re changing as pulling the tape on/off will make a noise, but I don’t consider that against actual product sound.

4.3 Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum Noise Profile
 

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 10
I didn’t notice any odors from the Tena Guard. This was a common theme with Tena products and it does feel like they have something in their padding design that cuts back on odors. That said, it’s harder to gauge this metric for these pads as the limited absorbency reduces the chance of odors in itself. Otherwise, the padding is particularly good in terms of preventing surface dampness, so that helps prevent the formation of odors in the first place.


Want to give the Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum pad a try?

Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our Tena Men Absorbent Guard Maximum affiliate link. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.

 

Monday 16 September 2024

Popoku Adult Diapers Review

 *For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology


 

Summary

Popoku is an Indonesian diaper brand that produces both adult and baby diapers. In a sense that’s a rarity as most companies have different branding for their adult and baby diapers. The brand name literally translates to “my diaper”. This review covers the Popoku Adult Diaper, which advertises as “dual function” for use as both an adult diaper or maternity pad. Even more unique to the branding on this diaper is that the package describes the content of it down to the level of percentages: 10% non-woven, 56% pulp, 16% super absorbent polymer (SAP), 9% polyethylene film, 0.6% front tape, 1.3% elastic, 0.6% resealable tape and 3.5% tissue. I can’t think of any other diaper I’ve researched that has covered its content to that level of detail and this is written right on the package. Needless to say, it would be interesting if more companies provided this information to help when comparing products.

The diaper itself has an uncommon design with two separate tape landing zones stretching out into the wings but not overlapping the center. It has a very soft plastic backsheet, similar to that of the Dr P. It also has standing inner leak guards and a wetness indicator. These are features that often get left out for diapers come at such a low unit cost. In terms of performance, it’s pretty much what you’d expect for the cost. You may be able to get one wetting without leakage, but it won’t consistently handle a wetting without leaks and would be better combined with a booster pad. It’s also susceptible to surface dampness and pressout moisture when seated. That it runs at an exceptionally low unit price and has some helpful features that are typically left out at that price point makes it a more compelling buy. In that sense you could use a booster to increase absorbency and would still come out ahead of many other diapers of comparable absorbency.


Key Features:

  • Plastic backsheet
  • Standing inner leak guards
  • Wetness indicator
  • Dual landing zones
  • Repositionable fasteners

Pros:

  • Soft backsheet
  • Snug/comfortable fit at the leg gathers
  • Very affordable unit cost

Cons:

  • Low absorbency
  • Surface dampness
  • Limited sizing options
  •  Padding deterioration

 

Product Details

For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the medium-sized Popoku Adult Diaper. However, other available sizes are listed below:


Packaging

Brand: Popoku
Manufacturer: PT. Zensei Indonesia
Origin: Indonesia
Units Per Bag: 10
Cost Per Unit: $
Dimensions (L x W x H): 26 cm (10.2") x 17 cm (6.7") x 20 cm (9.8")
Weight: 0.95 kg (2.1 lbs)
Available Sizes: M,L,XL
Advertised Absorbency: Extra

1.1 Popoku Adult Diaper Packaging

Diaper

Backsheet: Plastic (poly)
Wetness Indicator: Yes
Standing Inner Leak Guards: Yes
Leg Gathers: Yes
Product Style: Tab-Style Brief
Refastenable Tabs: Yes
Number of Tapes: 2
Repositionable Tabs: Yes
Outer Color: White (green wavy landing zones + blue/orange icons down middle)
Inner Color: White
Front Waistband: No
Rear Waistband: No
Folded Thickness: 2.77 cm (1.09")
Folded Length: 20 cm (7.9")
Dry Weight: 92 g (3.25 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 73 cm (28.7") x 63 cm (24.8") x 30 cm (11.8") x 61 cm (24")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 64 cm (21.9") x 24 cm (9.5") x 17 cm (6.7") x 35 cm (13.8")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 3.5 cm (1.4") x 8 cm (3.2") x 9 cm (3.5") x 15 cm (5.9")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 1270 cm2 (197 in2)
Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 4 cm (1.6") x 10 cm (3.9")
Tape (W x L): 2 cm (0.8") x 4 cm (1.6")

1.2 Popoku Adult Diaper


Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 703 ml (24.8 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 708 ml (25 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (94 s, 63 s, 84 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 4 cm (1.6")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 79%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.69 ml / cm2 (0.16 oz / in2)
Press Out Volume: 5 ml (0.18 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 4

During the lab test the Popoku diaper showed significant surface moisture on the paper towel press after the first wetting, though it was hardly the worst in this regard. Subsequent wettings demonstrated a saturated level of dampness. In spite of that, I found surface dampness to be a lesser issue during real world testing and it was better than others like the iCare or Secure diapers in this regard.



2.1 Wet vs Dry Diaper After Capacity Test


2.2 Used vs Unused Padding After Capacity Test


"Real World" Absorbency Tests

Posture Tests


Standing-Sitting

Total Absorbed Volume: 508 ml (17.9 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing)
Leaked After Sitting: Yes
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 88%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.40 ml / cm2 (0.09 oz / in2)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 3
The Popoku diaper demonstrated similar performance to that of the Dr P. when tested while standing and sitting. The first wetting while standing was fully absorbed, though there was clearly a lot of pooling in the mid-section while the front and rear padding still generally felt dry. The dampness continued but the moisture was distributed through the padding over a few minutes and it didn’t feel too noticeable, albeit with some slight sagging. Upon sitting shortly after the pressout moisture was pretty obvious with a brief sensation of some more pooling and moisture pushed out through the leg gathers. Eventually some of the moisture did wick up the rear but it wasn’t fast enough to prevent the leaks. I ended the test at this because it was a pretty obvious leak even though there was still a fair amount of dry padding at the front and rear of the diaper. You may be able to get one wetting out of this diaper during daily wear, but it’s highly susceptible to pressout and has a relatively low absorbency. It would be better used with a booster pad for extra protection.


Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 508 ml (17.9 oz)
Total Wettings: 1
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 75%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.40 ml / cm2 (0.09 oz / in2)

Lying Down Rating: 4

The Popoku diaper was again similar to the Dr P. when tested while lying down though it leaked in a different way. Both diapers leaked on the first wetting while lying down and absorbed roughly a similar amount at the time of leakage. Likewise, both ended up with substantial dry padding at the front at the time of leakage. However, the Popoku diaper leaked through its rear rather than leg gathers. That makes sense given this diaper actually has some decent inner leak guards. There was some initial pooling during the wetting, but I noticed it less than in the Dr P. The rear padding was clearly saturated when it leaked but the leak itself wasn’t that large. I suspect had the fit been a bit snugger (e.g. the landing zones run a bit further into the front) or had it had a rear waistband it may have been able to prevent this leak. For those who can get a snugger fit it may be good for at most one wetting, otherwise, I wouldn’t recommend the Pomoku for bedwetting unless combined with an absorbent booster pad.


2.3 Pattern of Used vs Unused Padding Test Stand/Sit (right) Lying Down (left)


Daily Wear and Bedwetting

This was a more interesting diaper to review than I expected. It had an interesting arrangement of tape landing zones as rectangular areas on the right or left but not covering the actual front of the diaper. In my personal experience this was a bit of a struggle because it limits how the diaper can be used if you're at the lower end of its size range. I was effectively at the bottom of the medium sizing, so I needed to push the tapes right to the innermost part of the landing zone and even then it felt loose. But aside from that, this diaper is remarkably well featured for one that comes at such a low price point; the only thing it’s really lacking are waistbands. In terms of performance, it’s about what I expected and I found it similar to the Dr P. diaper for absorbency. The performance is similar in both daily and overnight wear with it able to manage about one wetting before leakage. In both the lying down and standing-to-sitting lab tests it leaked after only a single large wetting. Though in real world testing, I found other occasions where it was able to manage a full bedwetting without leakage. I feel it may be slightly better suited for bedwetting than daily wear because there’s more padding in the rear and the lower absorbency level makes it susceptible to pressout. In either case, I feel it would be best used with a booster, especially considering that the diaper’s low base cost would make the booster choice a lot more economical than other diapers. The diaper is highly comfortable with a very soft plastic and breathable feel to it and would be great for warm weather wear, as are most SE Asian diapers. In terms of durability I found it sufficiently durable for the padding to retain its absorption and never had any issue with the tapes. The instructions on the package are highly detailed, with some things I’ve never seen before, like a suggestion to change the diaper when 2 / 3 of the wetness indicator symbols have faded. Aside from that, I found this diaper to be fairly skin friendly and the surface dampness, though noticeable, wasn’t as bad as you’d get from some diapers. At the price point it’d be a great choice, if only it were absorbent enough to consistently manage one wetting without leaks.


Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 8

I feel the Popoku diaper would actually be well suited for managing bowel incontinence. While it doesn’t have the most extensive padding, its rear padding is more prominent than the front padding. It has a plastic backsheet and inner leak guards, which are both a plus in this regard. Its absorbency should be adequate for the most part, even if not the best on the market. The downside is that it doesn’t have waistbands and difficulty getting a snug fit can make it more susceptible to odors.


Wear & Tear Tests


Fitting

The Popoku diaper features a plastic backsheet with two separate tape landing zones located at its front. This is the first diaper I’ve reviewed with such a landing zone configuration (though the NONISEC diaper seemed to have something resembling it). It seems to be a more common design for Indonesian diapers. Whereas most diapers have the landing zone as a single rectangle on the front, this diaper has two separate rectangular landing zones stretching from the edge of the front into its front wings. I believe this has some comfort benefits but the trade-off is a more difficult fitting. If you’re just a little too small for the diaper there’s no way to make use of the landing zone and you’ll need to stick the tapes directly to the backsheet where damage can occur.

3.1 Popoku Adult Diapers Fastener

Ease-of-Use Rating: 8

This diaper has user friendly features with particularly stretchy elastic leg gathers and soft breathable plastic backsheet. I did find the double landing zone to be a bit of a deficiency because it doesn’t extend far into the front so you’re better off looking for a smaller version of the diaper than you might otherwise wear to get a better tape fit. However, the sizing is also limited in that it starts at medium. Other than that, the inner leak guards gave it an edge over the Dr P. This diaper also features a wetness indicator, so it could be a better choice for a care environment; though I found the small orange indicator icons can be a bit hard to distinguish whether wet or dry. The tapes themselves are a little small but easy to refasten multiple times and the landing zone has a pattern so once you get a good fit it’s easy to reproduce by following the pattern.

3.2 Popoku Adult Diapers Fit

Comfort


Comfort Rating (dry): 9

This diaper is highly comfortable with a very soft plastic backsheet that resembles the one on the Dr P. diaper. It has snug but soft inner leak guards and leg gathers. Moreover, like most diapers from the region it’s surprisingly effective at dissipating heat and should be great for warm weather wear. I also didn’t have any issues with the tapes loosening or sagging. On the other hand, there was more padding deterioration in this diaper than in the Dr P. diaper. I also found the double landing zone arrangement a bit awkward and sometimes couldn’t quite get the fit I was looking for. It would also be nice if it had a waistband. Even so, I still rank it highly in this regard, at least to the level of the Carnation diaper.


Comfort Rating (wet): 7

The Popoku demonstrated a decent degree of comfort when wet. In spite of the waist having a looser fit than I would have liked due to the positioning of the landing zones, I didn’t notice much in the way of sagging. The tapes held up with no problem under the wet weight. My main complaint would have to be the surface dampness, which was a common theme in these lower absorbency diapers. In terms of breathability, the material is surprisingly soft and breathable and I didn’t notice any sensation of clamminess or discomfort. Had it been a bit more absorbent and better with surface dampness this could easily have been a top performer.

3.3 Popoku Adult Diapers Topsheet and Backsheet

Durability

Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 17.3% (topsheet), 13.4% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 8 shakes to deterioration


Durability Rating (dry): 6
There was considerable padding deterioration in the Popoku diaper during the dry durability test. After an extended period of wear with various activities, much of the padding between the legs had collapsed with a bit of wing deterioration as well. Yet none of the core padding had deteriorated so it still retained the bits that mattered the most. Other than the padding, the tapes held up remarkably well and I never had any issues with it coming loose during wear. The tapes and landing zone were fine with multiple refastenings. Overall, it should be an OK choice for active wear but I feel something like the Tena Slip Active Fit Maxi would be a much better choice.


Durability Rating (wet): 6

I rank the wet durability in the Popoku about the same as its dry durability. I didn’t notice an obvious increase in padding deterioration when it was wet and again there was no clumping or tearing. The tapes also continued to hold up well, with no sign of sagging under the additional weight. On the other hand, the wetness indicator in this diaper is almost too durable, it isn’t susceptible to sweat or other light moisture but the diaper needs to be very saturated before the orange droplet shapes down the middle disappear. If the dry durability were a little better the wet durability would surely follow.

3.4 Popoku Adult Diaper Dry Test Deterioration


Discretion Tests


Profile

Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 4 cm (1.6"), 4 cm (1.6")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 3 cm (1.2"), 2 cm (0.8")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 5 cm (2"), 2.5 cm (1")

Profile Discretion Rating: 8

The Popoku has a similar profile to that of the Dr P. diaper, though the padding length is a bit lower, which would make it easier to conceal. The front of the diaper seems almost flat, but there’s a bit of bulge at the rear. However, if worn in combination with meshpants or underwear it should be relatively easy to conceal and thus I rank among the better diapers in this regard.

4.1 Popoku Adult Diapers Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Popoku Adult Diapers Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right) 


Noise

Noise Rating: 6

This diaper performed moderately when it came to noise discretion. It was far from the noisiest diaper I’ve tested but there was a distinctive crinkling noise when sitting or standing. Oddly enough, I noticed it less when walking around. Often these diapers with landing zones are noisier than other tape mechanisms but I didn’t feel like it was a major contributing factor in this case. This is a diaper that isn’t discreet on its own, but its noise could be dampened with well planned outerwear.

4.3 Popoku Adult Diapers Noise Profile
 

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 7
In terms of odor reduction, the Popoku performed decently but not among the best in the market. The relatively loose waistline could be a bit of an issue, but the plastic backsheet and snug fit around the leg openings help. The padding itself is hardly the best in terms of odor reduction, with surface dampness a contributing factor for odor formation. Overall, I give it an edge over the Dr P. or Goodnites in this regard.