Thursday 29 December 2022

Nona Classic Slip Extra Adult Diaper Review

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


The Nona Classic Slip Extra is one of the lesser-known plastic-backed diapers and appears to mostly be sold in Germany. This diaper is full featured with dual waistbands, standing inner leak guards and refastenable tapes. This diaper does not have the absorbency you’ll find in popular competitors like the Molicare Slip Maxi, Tena Slip Active Fit Maxi or Abena Abri-Form M4. However, it does come at a far lower unit price that could make it an affordable option for those requiring frequent changes. During testing, I found this diaper to be quite durable and comfortable. It was consistently able to take a full wetting without leaking a bit, even under pressout conditions. I was impressed with its wicking ability, but it seems to have a relatively low absorbency threshold and will almost surely leak when wet more than once.

Key Features:

  • Plastic backsheet
  • Refastenable tapes
  • Dual waistbands
  • Standing inner leak barriers


  • Very affordable
  • Soft topsheet and backsheet
  • Strong tapes + durable
  • Great wicking ability


  • Low absorbency
  • Noisy
  • Surface dampness

Product Details

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


Brand: Nona
Manufacturer: S.I.CELL S.p.A. for MEDI-MARKT Homecare GmbH
Origin: EU
Units Per Bag: 25
Cost Per Unit: $$
Dimensions (L x W x H): 38 cm (15") x 16 cm (6.3") x 25 cm (9.8")
Weight: 2.6 kg (5.6 lbs)
Available Sizes: M, L
Advertised Absorbency: Extra

1.1 Nona Classic Slip Extra Packaging


Backsheet: Plastic (poly)
Wetness Indicator: Yes (yellow line down middle, blue when wet)
Standing Inner Leak Guards: Yes
Leg Gathers: Yes
Product Style: Tab-Style Brief
Refastenable Tabs: Yes
Number of Tapes: 2
Repositionable Tabs: No
Outer Color: White
Inner Color: White
Front Waistband: Yes
Rear Waistband: Yes
Folded Thickness: 1.7 cm (0.7")
Folded Length: 25 cm (9.8")
Dry Weight: 100 g (3.5 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 83 cm (23.6") x 60 cm (23.6") x 29.5 cm (11.6") x 60 cm (23.6")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 63 cm (24.8") x 28 cm (11") x 16.5 cm (6.5") x 32.5 cm (12.8")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 5.6 cm (2.3") x 15 cm (5.9") x 8 cm (3.2") x 20 cm (7.9")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 1532 cm2 (237 in2)
Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 3.5 cm (1.4") x 18 cm (7.1")
Tape (W x L): 3 cm (1.2") x 5 cm (2")

1.2 Nona Classic Slip Extra Diaper

Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 850 ml (30 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 900 ml (31.8 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (55 s, 52 s, 48 s, 52 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 4.5 cm (1.8")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 98%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.55 ml / cm2 (0.13 oz / in2)
Press Out Volume: 50 ml (1.8 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 4

The Nona Classic Slip Extra wasn’t particularly strong when it came to preventing surface dampness. During the lab test there were clear signs of surface dampness after the first wetting and it quickly reached saturation. During real world wear the surface dampness was fairly noticeable in parts of the padding after a single wetting, though its exceptional wicking ability helped and there was never much in the way of pooling.

2.1 Wet vs Dry Diaper After Capacity Test

2.2 Used vs Unused Padding After Capacity Test

"Real World" Absorbency Tests

Posture Tests


Total Absorbed Volume: 600 ml (21.2 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing, 1 sitting)
Leaked After Sitting: No
Used to Total Padding Ratio:100%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.39 ml / cm2 (0.09 oz / in2)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 6
The Nona Classic Slip Extra performed better than expected for daily wear. The first wetting while standing was quickly absorbed and distributed through the padding. There was a bit of surface dampness but it otherwise wasn’t too bad. There was no pressout leakage upon sitting shortly after. The second wetting while seated was nearly completely absorbed, the unused padding at the front of the diaper absorbed the bulk of it and the remainder wicked to the back. At this point there was minor leakage through the rear leg gathers and the diaper had obviously hit capacity so I stopped the test. I feel like this diaper should be reliable for 1 wetting during daily wear, but 2 would probably be pushing it. Even so, this is more than I expected. In spite of the thin padding it proved very proficient at wicking and at the end of the test the entirety of the padding was used.

Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 650 ml (22.9 oz)
Total Wettings: 2
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 81%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.42 ml / cm2 (0.10 oz / in2)

Lying Down Rating: 6

The Nona Classic Slip Extra performed reasonably when tested while lying down. The padding is pretty thin but the first wetting was easily able to wick through the padding and was absorbed over a large area in the rear padding. There was no sign of leakage at this point but much of the padding was used and felt slightly damp but otherwise not too clammy. The second wetting ended up with pooling and a moderate leak through the rear leg gathers. The rear padding was completely saturated at this point, but the front padding was still largely unused. Even so it became obvious that it was starting to tear from the damp padding below. In general, if you only wet once per night this could be a decent choice for bedwetting, but you wouldn’t want to push your luck if you wet frequently through the night.

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

Daily Wear and Bedwetting

The Nona Classic Slip Extra has a lot of great features for what might be considered a budget diaper. It features a plastic backsheet, dual waistbands, a wetness indicator and standing inner leak guards. However, it's relatively weak when it comes to absorbency and I found it can only reliably handle a single wetting without having to worry about leakage. In this way it reminds me a lot of the Depend Protection with Tabs, which is also full featured but with limited absorbency. Yet I found this diaper to be more comfortable than the Depend Protection with Tabs. The backsheet and leg gathers are softer and it feels a little less prone to heat. During testing I was impressed with its leak resistance after a single wetting. It has a fairly large area of padding and very effective wicking. I expected it to leak at least once when sitting after a wetting as often happens with lower absorbency diapers but I never noticed any leakage, nor did I notice any when worn for bedwetting. I suppose it’s possible if wet when sleeping on your side, but the plastic backsheet would likely just redirect it into the rear padding. So I feel very confident in this diaper's ability to consistently avoid leakage if you can change it after a single wetting. That said, it hits saturation fairly quickly and, once hit, leaks are very likely. I found this to be the case after a second wetting and I wouldn’t recommend this if worn for a longer duration without the aid of a booster. Moreover, even after a single wetting there will be some surface dampness which can lead to skin irritation if worn longer. In my case this diaper was generally effective for bedwetting since I rarely have multiple wettings and I found it to be pretty comfortable for this purpose. It wasn’t as good when tested during daily wear, mostly on account of how noisy it tends to be and the more obvious surface dampness when seated. I think it could be a great choice for daily wear when it can be changed shortly after a wetting, perhaps in a care home setting. All in all, I don’t feel I could ask for much more in this diaper given its pricing. I feel it would be great for some cases like bowel incontinence where you need to change immediately following bowel movement or other situations where you’d want to change shortly after a wetting without breaking the bank.

Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 9

The Nona Classic Slip Extra is well suited for bowel incontinence. In spite of its relatively low absorbency, the padding it does have provides extensive coverage, particularly up the rear. Moreover, it has a plastic backsheet which is often very important in cases of  bowel incontinence. It also features dual waistbands and standing inner leak guards to further block odors and prevent leakage. Not much I would really change for this diaper with respect to how it performs for bowel incontinence, but I think it would be better if it were a bit more absorbent.

Wear & Tear Tests


The Nona Classic Slip Extra has two refastenable tapes per side, using the double tape to adhere to its plastic-backsheet. It also features dual waistbands, which are fairly large and flexible, making it easy to arrive at a snug fit. I found the tapes to be good quality during testing and never had an issue with them coming loose on me or weakening much with refastenings.

3.1 Nona Classic Slip Extra Fastener

Ease-of-Use Rating: 9

The Nona Classic Slip Extra is nearly as good as it comes with regards to user friendliness. It’s full featured with dual waistbands, standing inner leak guards and a wetness indicator. The tapes are pretty easy to add/remove, though you may want to be careful when removing for refastening to make sure you don’t pull up the underlying tape; though this is pretty much the case for any double-tape diaper. I found this diaper to be similar to the Carnation Adult Diaper in terms of ease-of-use with the actual stretchiness of the waistband putting this slightly above many other plastic-backed diapers. However, it’s far from the most absorbent on the market, so I’m ranking it assuming it can be changed after it hits a 1 wetting capacity.

3.2 Nona Classic Slip Extra Diaper Fit


Comfort Rating (dry): 8

The Nona Classic Slip Extra is reasonably comfortable when dry. It has a soft plastic-backsheet with good heat distribution though less so than the Tena Slip Active Fit Maxi. The padding is fairly soft and covers a large area but is also relatively thin, which can make it feel like more skin is in contact with the backsheet and can increase any sensation from sweat. The thinner padding also makes it somewhat more susceptible to tearing, but I never had much of an issue with clumping in this diaper. Otherwise the fit is good and I never had issues with sagging or loosening while wearing.

Comfort Rating (wet): 6

The Nona Classic Slip Extra was similar to the Carnation Adult Diaper in terms of comfort when wet. It doesn’t have any issues with sagging and the backsheet keeps it relatively cool. I noticed a bit of padding tearing, but little in the way of clumping and the padding wasn’t too different from in its dry state. The primary issue affecting comfort in this diaper is the presence of surface dampness. While not as bad as the Depend Protection with Tabs, the surface dampness in this diaper will be noticeable after a single wetting likely owing to the thin padding and relatively low absorbency.

3.3 Nona Classic Slip Extra Topsheet and Backsheet


Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 15% (topsheet), 13.5% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 10 shakes to deterioration

Durability Rating (dry): 7
The Nona Classic Slip Extra came in a bit above average for dry durability. The thin padding was susceptible to tears and a fair amount of deterioration showed up after the dry durability test. However, little was in critical parts of the diaper and I didn’t notice any clumping. Even so, the padding thinness made the wetness indicator quite susceptible to sweat/minor drips/dribbles. Aside from that I found the tapes of this diaper to have good adhesiveness and they remained effective after multiple refastenings.

Durability Rating (wet): 7

The wet durability of the Nona Classic Slip Extra lined up with its dry durability. Again it was a little susceptible to padding tears but not clumping and the core padding remained well intact. It also performed surprisingly well in the “shake test”, withstanding 10 shakes before any significant sign of deterioration. However, I didn’t weigh this heavily in my scoring and diapers with thinner padding tended to do better in this test. Aside from that, the tapes on this diaper could easily hold up to added weight when wet and I never felt it loosening.

3.4 Nona Classic Slip Extra Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests


Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 5 cm (2"), 4 cm (1.6")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 5.5 cm (2.2"), 4 cm (1.6")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 3.5 cm (1.4"), 2 cm (0.8")

Profile Discretion Rating: 7

The profile of the Nona Classic Slip Extra is comparable to the EasySlip Night or Attends Care Poly Briefs. The padding is thin but spacious so it can show a bit of a diaper bulge, particularly at the rear. However, I feel this can be easily concealed under meshpants or underwear. Moreover, there isn’t a significant difference between its wet and dry states.

4.1 Nona Classic Slip Extra Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Nona Classic Slip Extra Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right) 


Noise Rating: 5

The thinness of the padding in the Nona Classic Slip Extra works against its ability to dampen noise. This is a common issue with thinner plastic-backed diapers. There’s not much to force the padding to hold its shape so it tends to fold with movement, causing a distinctive crinkling noise, particularly when wet. I feel this could be mitigated to some extent with meshpants or underwear but I still feel it’d be tough to conceal completely.

4.3 Nona Classic Slip Extra Noise Profile

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 8
The Nona Classic Slip Extra excels in containment of odors. It owes this largely to the snugness of its fit with very flexible leg gathers and waistbands. That said, it’s not perfect as the padding is fairly thin and susceptible to surface dampness, so it might be more fair to say it’s containing odors rather than reducing them. Thus I can’t rate it at the top of the market in this regard, but for many this should be good enough.

Want to give the Nona Classic Slip Extra a try?

Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our Nona Classic Slip Extra affiliate link. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.


  1. And an other one around 100g ps just barely good enough. It is interesting to see that slips which just weigh a few grams more are so much better (attends regular 10M (108g), ID extra (110g), molicare M8 (117g) and able to hold easily 250 to 350 ml more. Even the molicare M6 at 98g is already 200 ml higher. This really shows that these are actually really bad! Even amazon in Europe sold an Ontex made slip at 76g having the same performance as these, but at a price of 37c a piece. (data based on Mean of >15 real uses and statistical analysis). Hence I really do like your proper and in depth way of analysis! I also calculated that real absorption is close to 0.4x the ISO published values, this holds for about 30 different models/brands/sizes.

    1. Thanks for your analysis and product comparisons! I suspect that these have a high percentage of fluff pulp in the padding, which is great for wicking but not overall absorption. I found these were pretty consistent in performance, but hardly the best value on the market.