Tuesday 20 February 2024

Secure (SKmax) Basic Adult Diaper Review

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



The Secure Basic Adult Diaper is a budget Southeast Asian diaper with a cloth-like backsheet and plastic landing zone. This diaper appears to be made in Vietnam but distributed in other nearby countries. It also appears to have recently been rebranded as the SKmax Adult Diaper “Economy Grade”. With a clear emphasis on its place in the budget segment, it’s no surprise that this diaper has relatively thin padding and low absorbency. In practice it feels best suited for a care environment or where frequent changes are common and there’s often a need for more budget-friendly diapers. This diaper will likely absorb a single wetting while lying down, but is most likely to leak while seated. Otherwise, I did find this diaper to be highly comfortable and if it were a bit more absorbent it would likely score much higher.

Key Features:

  • Cloth-like backsheet
  • Landing zone
  • Repositionable fasteners
  • Standing inner leak barriers
  • Wetness indicator


  • Strong tapes
  • Comfortable and breathable
  • Low unit price


  • Padding deterioration
  • Low absorbency

Product Details

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


Brand: Secure
Manufacturer: Dist by: Marketing Intelligent Group Co.,LTD.
Origin: Vietnam
Units Per Bag: 10
Cost Per Unit: $
Dimensions (L x W x H): 25 cm (9.8") x 16 cm (6.3") x 22 cm (8.7")
Weight: 0.83 kg (1.82 lbs)
Available Sizes: M-L, L-XL
Advertised Absorbency: Basic

1.1 Secure Basic Packaging


Backsheet: Cloth-like (non-woven)
Wetness Indicator: Yes (small blue dots down the middle, fades when wet)
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 landing zone with hearts/dots and numbering)
Inner Color: White
Front Waistband: No
Rear Waistband: No
Folded Thickness: 2.3 cm (0.91")
Folded Length: 23 cm (9.1")
Dry Weight: 87 g (3.1 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 78 cm (30.7") x 66 cm (26") x 29 cm (11.4") x 65 cm (25.6")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 61 cm (24") x 32 cm (12.6") x 18 cm (7.1") x 40 cm (15.8")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 7 cm (2.8") x 13 cm (5.1") x 11 cm (4.3") x 17 cm (6.7")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle
Total Padding Area: 1654 cm2 (256 in2)
Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 5.5 cm (2.2") x 12 cm (4.7")
Tape (W x L): 2.5 cm (1") x 3.5 cm (1.4")

1.2 Secure Basic Diaper

Laboratory Absorbency Tests

Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 663 ml (23.4 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 688 ml (24.3 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (85 s, 69 s, 92 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 3 cm (1.2")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 79%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.40 ml / cm2 (0.09 oz / in2)
Press Out Volume: 25 ml (0.88 oz)

Surface Dampness Rating: 2

The Secure Basic diaper performed poorly when it came to surface dampness. On the lab test it demonstrated significant surface dampness after only a single wetting. During real world testing, there was clearly pooling and continuing dampness after a wetting. I rank this diaper similar to the iCare Adult Diaper 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


Total Absorbed Volume: 538 ml (19 oz)
Total Wettings: (1 standing, 1 sitting)
Leaked After Sitting: No
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 62%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.33 ml / cm2 (0.07 oz / in2)

Standing-Sitting Rating: 2
I was surprised by the performance of the Secure Basic when tested while standing and sitting. The first wetting while standing was fully absorbed, though there was initially significant pooling. Eventually it was fully absorbed and there wasn’t any hint of leakage, nor was there leakage upon sitting shortly afterward. I figured this diaper was going to leak for sure when sitting but the leak guards did a good job at containment and moisture spread through the thin padding. On the second wetting while seated there was substantial leakage through the rear leg gathers. Initially, the moisture pushed up the front and there was a lot of pooling but nothing crossed the front leak guards or got into the wings and it all ended up settling toward the rear padding. The diaper felt very damp at this point and it was clear it was at its limit, however, there was still a fair amount of thin unused padding at the rear. I’d expected it to fail much sooner, and was surprised it managed a wetting without leaking given the cloth-like backsheet and thin padding. I generally feel this diaper should be able to handle a single wetting without leakage during daily wear, though I wouldn’t always count on that.

Lying Down

Total Absorbed Volume: 538 ml (19 oz)
Total Wettings: 1
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 76%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.33 ml / cm2 (0.07 oz / in2)

Lying Down Rating: 3

I didn’t expect much from the Secure Basic, so I was quite surprised when it absorbed a full wetting with only a tiny leak while lying down. During the wetting, little moisture hit the front padding and it mostly concentrated in the mid-section. The loose design probably played a role here. It quickly reached saturation and there was a bit of pooling but most moisture was captured in the mid-padding and the structure did a surprisingly good job at retaining it. By the end of the test the padding was clearly at capacity, though the front padding was still largely dry so I stopped the test at that. I’m pretty sure had I got up and sat down somewhere there would have been significant pressout moisture and a larger leak. Even so, it absorbed an unexpectedly large amount and I expect it will generally absorb one wetting without leakage while lying down.

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

Daily Wear and Bedwetting

The Secure Basic Adult Diaper is a “hybrid” diaper, but in the opposite sense of the Rearz Barnyard “hybrid”. Rather than being plastic-backed with cloth-style fasteners, this diaper is cloth-backed with plastic-style fasteners. It features a wide-plastic landing zone at the front with adhesive tapes that can be refastened and repositioned multiple times to it. In daily wear I found the diaper to be underwhelming. I feel it’s probably best suited to a carer environment with bed-bound patients, where it can be changed frequently. Otherwise, it has a tendency to leak by the first or second wetting. In practice I found it could manage a wetting without leaking while lying down since this will put less pressout pressure on it. However, it’s much more likely to leak when seated and likely to leak as soon as the first wetting this case. This is largely due to the very thin padding and, consequently, limited absorbency. Otherwise, the backsheet structure and leak guards do a pretty decent job and I found moisture more likely to initially pool rather than escaping through the wings or leg gathers. So it may also work for bedwetting if you rarely have more than a single wetting. It’s also very breathable and heat resistant. Moreover, I was impressed with how easily it is to obtain a snug fit on this diaper. In terms of durability, I found the padding frequently came apart, not unlike the Attends Care Poly, if not slightly better than that diaper. I also found the tapes can get so stuck to the landing zone that it’s hard to remove them and I’ve even torn the wings trying to get them off at times. So again, this diaper is probably not a good choice for self-use unless you’re dual-incontinent, only removing it to change to a fresh one.

Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 7

The Secure Basic adult diaper is modestly suited for bowel incontinence. It has generous leg gathers and a decent area of rear padding. The rear is quite spacious, which would also help with bowel incontinence. In spite of it being cloth-backed I’ve found the backsheet material to be impermeable. However, it should be noted the padding is relatively thin and it's not well designed to contain odors so I’d advise some caution when using this for bowel containment.

Wear & Tear Tests


The Secure Basic diaper could be considered a “hybrid” as it features a cloth-like backsheet but adhesive tapes with a plastic landing zone. This gives it a more breathable design, but with the stronger adhesive tapes you’d get from a plastic backed diaper. The tapes on this diaper grip very firmly to the landing zone.

3.1 Secure Basic Fastener

Ease-of-Use Rating: 8

The Secure Basic diaper is easy to use but with a few potential pitfalls. In terms of tape adjustment it’s quite friendly since it has a patterned landing zone to make it easy to consistently reproduce a good fit. I’ve found it easy to get a good and snug fit. However, I’ve found it difficult to adjust the tapes after they’re first attached because they have such a firm grip. In fact, I accidentally tore one of the wings trying to reposition a tape. If you don’t expect to remove the diaper until it’s time to change then maybe that’s fine. This should make it an OK choice for a care environment where it may be changed quickly and frequently. It also features a wetness indicator and standing inner leak guards.

3.2 Secure Basic Fit


Comfort Rating (dry): 7

The Secure Basic is quite breathable and comfortable in its dry state. If it wasn’t for the ease at which the padding deteriorates, I’d rank this diaper near the top. A fresh one of these diapers will feel snug but also spacious and is highly resistant to heat accumulation. The backsheet holds out well with wear and doesn’t loosen at all. However, the padding has a tendency to tear and clump, particularly at the front. This leaves the skin in direct contact with the backsheet and detracts a bit from the comfort. The padding itself is very soft, as are the leak guards and leg gathers, so with a bit more durability it could be a much better option.

Comfort Rating (wet): 6

I found the Secure Basic diaper to be somewhat comfortable when wet, but hardly a top performer in this regard. Its main benefit here is its breathability, where the sides are fully breathable and it doesn’t retain heat. Limited absorbency plays into this a little too, since you’d never wear it for more than a single wetting. The downside is that it’s very susceptible to surface dampness and padding deterioration means more of your skin is likely to be in contact with the backsheet. Otherwise, the tapes hold incredibly well and I never had any issues with surface dampness during testing.

3.3 Secure Basic Topsheet and Backsheet


Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 29.7% (topsheet), 26.4% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 8 shakes to deterioration

Durability Rating (dry): 5
The Secure Basic diaper has a highly durable backsheet, but very poor padding durability. I believe this has to do with the thinness of the padding. It has a strong tendency to tear, even in key parts of the padding, and particularly at the front of the diaper. This results in padding loosening and sinking toward the diaper’s mid-section. I also found the wetness indicator highly susceptible to sweat or minor dribbles, also a factor connected to the padding thinness. Otherwise, the tapes have an incredible grip and I never had any issues with it coming loose or sagging, though I did once damage the wing and pull a tape off when trying to reposition the diaper since it took so much force to remove it after it had initially been attached.

Durability Rating (wet): 5

The Secure Basic diaper suffered significant padding deterioration in its dry state and was just as bad in its wet state. This is particularly true for the front padding where much of it slipped down and there were large areas exposed directly to the backsheet. Otherwise, the structure and particularly tapes held up incredibly well during testing. It also held out well during the shake test, albeit given limited capacity. I never had a hint of sagging during testing. The backsheet durability is really the reason I didn’t go lower with the scoring as I felt padding deteriorated in some key areas during testing but the structure kept it in a shape that moisture could still be directed to the right spots.

3.4 Secure Basic Dry Test Deterioration

Discretion Tests


Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 3 cm (1.2"), 5 cm (2")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 4.5 cm (1.8"), 4 cm (1.6")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 4 cm (1.6"), 4 cm (1.6")

Profile Discretion Rating: 8

The Secure Basic diaper has a very thin padding and generally fits pretty snugly. If combined with underwear or meshpants it should easily fit discreetly under most outfits. If worn stand alone, I’ve found it does have a slight bulge at the rear, but even then it doesn’t stand out too much. However, it does also have a tendency to rise above the waistline.

4.1 Secure Basic Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)

4.2 Secure Basic Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right) 


Noise Rating: 6

For a diaper with a cloth-like backsheet, the Secure Basic is surprisingly noisy. Most of this reflects the plastic landing zone at the front of the diaper. It has a strong tendency to crinkle with even the slightest movement. The thin padding doesn’t do much to dampen the sound either. I think it could be concealed under some amount of clothing, but it would be a challenge to reduce the sound entirely.

4.3 Secure Basic Noise Profile

Odor Reduction

Odor Reduction Rating: 4
The Secure Basic diaper doesn’t perform well when it comes to odors. I noticed odor from this diaper during testing and found the padding thin/quite susceptible to dampness, which could further contribute to odors. I rank it similar to the Healthy Spirit diaper in this regard. The main benefit in this diaper is that it has a pretty durable design, which can somewhat help with containment, but the breathable wings mean odors will still escape.

No comments:

Post a Comment