Hubbry Logo
TamponTamponMain
Open search
Tampon
Community hub
Tampon
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tampon
Tampon
Tampon
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A tampon in its dry, unused state

A tampon is a menstrual product designed to absorb blood and vaginal secretions by insertion into the vagina during menstruation. Unlike a pad, it is placed internally, inside of the vaginal canal.[1] Once inserted correctly, a tampon is held in place by the vagina and expands as it soaks up menstrual blood.

As tampons also absorb the vagina's natural lubrication and bacteria in addition to menstrual blood, they can increase the risk of toxic shock syndrome by changing the normal pH of the vagina and increasing the risk of infections from the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus.[1][2] TSS is a rare but life-threatening infection that requires immediate medical attention.[3]

The majority of tampons sold are made of blends of rayon and cotton, along with synthetic fibers.[4] Some tampons are made out of organic cotton. Tampons are available in several absorbency ratings.

Several countries regulate tampons as medical devices. In the United States, they are considered to be a Class II medical device by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).[5] They are sometimes used for hemostasis in surgery.

A tampon (magenta) inserted into the vagina (blue) to collect blood from the uterus (green)

Design and packaging

[edit]
A tampon with applicator
The elements of a tampon with applicator. Left: the bigger tube ("penetrator"). Center: cotton tampon with attached string. Right: the narrower tube.
Applicator tampon

Tampon design varies between companies and across product lines in order to offer a variety of applicators, materials and absorbencies.[6] There are two main categories of tampons based on the way of insertion – digital tampons inserted by finger, and applicator tampons. Tampon applicators may be made of plastic or cardboard, and are similar in design to a syringe. The applicator consists of two tubes, an "outer", or barrel, and "inner", or plunger. The outer tube has a smooth surface to aid insertion and sometimes comes with a rounded end that is petaled.[7][8]

Differences exist in the way tampons expand when in use: applicator tampons generally expand axially (increase in length), while digital tampons will expand radially (increase in diameter).[9] Most tampons have a cord or string for removal. The majority of tampons sold are made of rayon, or a blend of rayon and cotton. Organic cotton tampons are marketed as 100% cotton, but they may have plastic covering the cotton core.[10] Tampons may also come in scented or unscented varieties.[7]

Absorbency ratings

[edit]
The main elements of a tampon depicted, labeling the tampon, plunger, barrel, finger grip, and string
Two water drop marks mean that the absorbency is between 6 and 9 g.

In the US

[edit]

Tampons are available in several absorbency ratings, which are consistent across manufacturers in the U.S. These differ in the amount of cotton in each product and are measured based on the amount of fluid they are able to absorb.[11] The absorbency rates required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for manufacturer labeling are listed below:[12]

FDA Absorbency Ratings
Ranges of absorbency in grams Corresponding term of absorbency
6 and under Light absorbency
6 to 9 Regular absorbency
9 to 12 Super absorbency
12 to 15 Super plus absorbency
15 to 18 Ultra absorbency
Above 18 No term

In Europe

[edit]

Absorbency ratings outside the US may be different. The majority of non-US manufacturers use absorbency rating and Code of Practice[13] recommended by EDANA (European Disposables and Nonwovens Association).

European absorbency ratings
Droplets Grams Alternative size description
1 droplet < 6
2 droplets 6–9 Mini
3 droplets 9–12 Regular
4 droplets 12–15 Super
5 droplets 15–18
6 droplets 18–21

In the UK

[edit]

In the UK, the Absorbent Hygiene Product Manufacturers Association (AHPMA) has written a Tampon Code of Practice which companies can follow on a volunteer basis.[14] According to this code, UK manufacturers should follow the (European) EDANA code (see above).

Testing

[edit]

A piece of test equipment referred to as a Syngyna (short for synthetic vagina) is usually used to test absorbency. The machine uses a condom into which the tampon is inserted, and synthetic menstrual fluid is fed into the test chamber.[15]

A novel way of testing was developed by feminist medical experts after the toxic shock syndrome (TSS) crisis, and used blood – rather than the industry standard blue saline – as a test material.[16]

Labeling

[edit]

The FDA requires the manufacturer to perform absorbency testing to determine the absorbency rating using the Syngyna method or other methods that are approved by the FDA. The manufacturer is also required to include on the package label the absorbency rating and a comparison to other absorbency ratings as an attempt to help consumers choose the right product and avoid complications of TSS. In addition, The following statement of association between tampons and TSS is required by the FDA to be on the package label as part of the labeling requirements: "Attention: Tampons are associated with Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS). TSS is a rare but serious disease that may cause death. Read and save the enclosed information."[12]

Such guidelines for package labeling are more lenient when it comes to tampons bought from vending machines. For example, tampons sold in vending machines are not required by the FDA to include labeling such as absorbency ratings or information about TSS.[12]

Costs

[edit]

The average person who menstruates and uses only tampons uses about 11,400 tampons in their lifetime. In the 2020s, tampon prices have risen due to inflation and supply chain challenges. As of 2022, a box of tampons typically cost between $7 and US$12 and contains 16 to 40 tampons, depending on the brand and size. This means users might spend between $63 and $108 annually on tampons alone, assuming the need for around 9 boxes per year. This corresponds to an average cost of approximately $0.22–$0.75 per tampon, reflecting price increases of up to 33% since the pandemic.[17][18] Activists call the problem some women have when not being able to afford menstrual products "period poverty". The fact that, in certain U.S. states, sales tax applies to menstrual products is referred to as a "tampon tax". As of 2024, 23 states exempt these products, while others impose taxes up to 7%. Local taxes can also apply, adding further costs. Some states such as Texas recently abolished this tax. Some states provide free tampons and pads in public schools and prisons, helping to alleviate period poverty.[19][20]

Health aspects

[edit]

Toxic shock syndrome

[edit]
Main article: Toxic shock syndrome

Menstrual toxic shock syndrome (mTSS) is a life-threatening disease most commonly caused by infection of superantigen-producing Staphylococcus aureus. The superantigen toxin secreted in S. aureus infections is TSS Toxin-1, or TSST-1. Incidence ranges from 0.03 to 0.50 cases per 100,000 people, with an overall mortality around 8%.[21] mTSS signs and symptoms include fever (greater than or equal to 38.9 °C), rash, desquamation, hypotension (systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg), and multi-system organ involvement with at least three systems, such as gastrointestinal complications (vomiting), central nervous system (CNS) effects (disorientation), and myalgia.[22]

Toxic shock syndrome was named by James K. Todd in 1978.[23] Philip M. Tierno Jr., Director of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology at the NYU Langone Medical Center, helped determine that tampons were behind toxic shock syndrome (TSS) cases in the early 1980s. Tierno blames the introduction of higher-absorbency tampons made with rayon in 1978, as well as the relatively recent decision by manufacturers to recommend that tampons can be worn overnight, for the surge in cases of TSS.[24] However, a later meta-analysis found that the material composition of tampons is not directly correlated to the incidence of toxic shock syndrome, whereas oxygen and carbon dioxide content of menstrual fluid uptake is associated more strongly.[25][26][27]

In 1982, a liability case called Kehm v. Procter & Gamble took place, where the family of Patricia Kehm sued Procter & Gamble for her death on September 6, 1982, from TSS, while using Rely brand tampons. The case was the first successful case to sue the company. Procter & Gamble paid $300,000 in compensatory damages to the Kehm family. This case can be attributed to the increase in regulations and safety protocol testing for current FDA requirements.[2]

Some risk factors identified for developing TSS include recent labor and delivery, tampon use, recent staphylococcus infection, recent surgery, and foreign objects inside the body.[28]

The FDA suggests the following guidelines for decreasing the risk of contracting TSS when using tampons:[29][30]

  • Choose the lowest absorbency needed for one's flow (test of absorbency is approved by FDA)
  • Follow package directions and guidelines for insertion and tampon usage (located on box's label)
  • Change the tampon at least every 4 to 8 hours
  • Alternate usage between tampons and pads
  • Increase awareness of the warning signs of Toxic Shock Syndrome and other tampon-associated health risks (and remove the tampon as soon as a risk factor is noticed)

The FDA also advises those with a history of TSS not to use tampons and instead turn to other feminine hygiene products to control menstrual flow.[31] Other menstrual hygiene products available include pads, menstrual cups, menstrual discs, and reusable period underwear.[1]

Cases of tampon-connected TSS are very rare in the United Kingdom[32][33][34] and United States.[35][36] A controversial study by Tierno found that all-cotton tampons were less likely than rayon tampons to produce the conditions in which TSS can grow.[37] This was done using a direct comparison of 20 brands of tampons, including conventional cotton/rayon tampons and 100% organic cotton tampons.[38] In a series of studies conducted after this initial claim, it was shown that all tampons (regardless of composition) are similar in their effect on TSS and that tampons made with rayon do not have an increased incidence of TSS.[21] Instead, tampons should be selected based on minimum absorbency rating necessary to absorb flow corresponding to the individual.[30]

Sea sponges are also marketed as menstrual hygiene products. A 1980 study by the University of Iowa found that commercially sold sea sponges contained harmful materials like sand and bacteria.[39]

Studies have shown non-significantly higher mean levels of mercury in tampon users compared to non tampon users. No evidence showed an association between tampon use and inflammation biomarkers.[40]

Other considerations

[edit]

Bleached products

[edit]

According to the Women's Environmental Network research briefing on menstrual products made from wood pulp:[41]

The basic ingredient for menstrual pads is wood pulp, which begins life as a brown coloured product. Various 'purification' processes can be used to bleach it white. Measurable levels of dioxin have been found near paper pulping mills, where chlorine has been used to bleach the wood pulp. Dioxin is one of the most persistent and toxic chemicals, and can cause reproductive disorders, damage to the immune system and cancer (26). There are no safe levels and it builds up in our fat tissue and in our environment.

Marine pollution

[edit]

In the UK, the Marine Conservation Society has researched the prevalence and problem of plastic tampon applicators found on beaches.[42]

Disposal and flushing

[edit]

Disposal of tampons, especially flushing (which manufacturers warn against) may lead to clogged drains and waste management problems.[43]

Tampon-drug interactions

[edit]

There are multiple cases in which the use of tampons may need medical advice from a healthcare professional. For example, as part of the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. National Library of Medicine and its branch MedlinePlus advise against using tampons while being treated with any of several medications taken by the vaginal route such as vaginal suppositories and creams, as tampons may decrease the absorbance of these drugs by the body. Example of these medications include clindamycin,[44] terconazole,[45] miconazole,[46] clotrimazole,[47] when used as a vaginal cream or vaginal suppository, as well as butoconazole vaginal cream.[48]

Increased risk for infections

[edit]

According to the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ASBMT), tampons may be responsible for an increased risk of infection due to the erosions it causes in the tissue of the cervix and vagina, leaving the skin prone to infections. Thus, ASBMT advises hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients against using tampons while undergoing therapy.[49]

Other uses

[edit]

Clinical use

[edit]

Tampons are currently being used and tested to restore and/or maintain the normal microbiota of the vagina to treat bacterial vaginosis.[50] Some of these are available to the public but come with disclaimers.[51] The efficacy of the use of these probiotic tampons has not been established.

Tampons have also been used in cases of tooth extraction to reduce post-extraction bleeding.[52]

Tampons are currently being investigated as a possible use to detect endometrial cancer.[53] Endometrial cancer does not currently have effective cancer screening methods if an individual is not showing symptoms.[54] Tampons not only absorb menstrual blood, but also vaginal fluids. The vaginal fluids absorbed in the tampons would also contain the cancerous DNA, and possibly contain precancerous material, allowing for earlier detection of endometrial cancer.[55] Clinical trials are currently being conducted to evaluate the use of tampons as a screening method for early detection of endometrial cancer.

Environment and waste

[edit]
Unused (left) and used (right) tampon

Appropriate disposal of used tampons is still lacking in many countries. Because of the lack of menstrual management practices in some countries, many sanitary pads or other menstrual products will be disposed into domestic solid wastes or garbage bins that eventually becomes part of a solid wastes.[56]

The issue that underlies the governance or implementation of menstrual waste management is how country categorizes menstrual waste. This waste could be considered as a common household waste, hazardous household waste (which will required to be segregated from routine household waste), biomedical waste given amount of blood it contains, or plastic waste given the plastic content in many commercial disposal pads (some only the outer case of the tampon or pads).[57]

Ecological impact varies according to disposal method (whether a tampon is flushed down the toilet or placed in a garbage bin – the latter is the recommended option). Factors such as tampon composition will likewise impact sewage treatment plants or waste processing.[58] The average use of tampons in menstruation may add up to approximately 11,400 tampons in someone's lifetime (if they use only tampons rather than other products).[59] Tampons are made of cotton, rayon, polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene, and fiber finishes. Aside from the cotton, rayon and fiber finishes, these materials are not biodegradable. Organic cotton tampons are biodegradable, but must be composted to ensure they break down in a reasonable amount of time. Rayon was found to be more biodegradable than cotton.[60]

Environmentally friendly alternatives to using tampons are the menstrual cup, reusable sanitary pads, menstrual sponges, reusable tampons,[61] and reusable absorbent underwear.[62][63][64]

The Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm carried out a life-cycle assessment (LCA) comparison of the environmental impact of tampons and sanitary pads. They found that the main environmental impact of the products was in fact caused by the processing of raw materials, particularly LDPE (low density polyethylene) – or the plastics used in the backing of pads and tampon applicators, and cellulose production. As production of these plastics requires a lot of energy and creates long-lasting waste, the main impact from the life cycle of these products is fossil fuel use, though the waste produced is significant in its own right.[65]

The menstrual material was disposed according to the type of product, and even based on cultural beliefs. This was done regardless of giving any importance to the location and proper techniques of disposal. In some areas of the world, menstrual waste is disposed into pit latrines, as burning and burial were difficult due to limited private space.[56]

History

[edit]

Women have used tampons during menstruation for thousands of years. In her book Everything You Must Know About Tampons (1981), Nancy Friedman writes,[66]

[T]here is evidence of tampon use throughout history in a multitude of cultures. The oldest printed medical document, Ebers Papyrus, refers to the use of soft papyrus tampons by Egyptian women in the fifteenth century B.C. Roman women used wool tampons. Women in ancient Japan fashioned tampons out of paper, held them in place with a bandage, and changed them 10 to 12 times a day. Traditional Hawaiian women used the furry part of a native fern called hapu'u; and grasses, mosses and other plants are still used by women in parts of Asia and Africa.

R. G. Mayne defined a tampon in 1860 as: "a less inelegant term for the plug, whether made up of portions of rag, sponge, or a silk handkerchief, where plugging the vagina is had recourse to in cases of hemorrhage."[67]

Earle Haas patented the first modern tampon, Tampax, with the tube-within-a-tube applicator. Gertrude Schulte Tenderich (née Voss) bought the patent rights to her company trademark Tampax and started as a seller, manufacturer, and spokesperson in 1933.[68] Tenderich hired women to manufacture the item and then hired two sales associates to market the product to drugstores in Colorado and Wyoming, and nurses to give public lectures on the benefits of the creation, and was also instrumental in inducing newspapers to run advertisements.

In 1945, Tampax presented a number of studies to prove the safety of tampons. A 1965 study by the Rock Reproductive Clinic stated that the use of tampons "has no physiological or clinical undesired side effects".[23]

During her study of female anatomy, German gynecologist Judith Esser-Mittag developed a digital-style tampon, which was made to be inserted without an applicator. In the late 1940s, Carl Hahn and Heinz Mittag worked on the mass production of this tampon. Hahn sold his company to Johnson & Johnson in 1974.[69]

In 1992, Congress found an internal FDA memo about the presence of dioxin, a known carcinogen, in tampons.[70] Dioxin is one of the toxic chemicals produced when wood pulp is bleached with chlorine.[71] Congressional hearings were held and tampon manufacturers assured Congress that the trace levels of dioxin in tampons was well below EPA level. The EPA has stated there is no acceptable level of dioxin.[70] Following this, major commercial tampon brands began switching from dioxin-producing chlorine gas bleaching methods to either elemental "chlorine-free" or "totally chlorine free" bleaching processes.[72]

In the United States, the Tampon Safety and Research Act was introduced to Congress in 1997 in an attempt to create transparency between tampon manufacturers and consumers. The bill would mandate the conduct or support of research on the extent to which additives in feminine hygiene products pose any risks to the health of women or to the children of women who use those products during or before the pregnancies involved.[73] Although yet to be passed, the bill has been continually reintroduced, most recently in 2019 as the Robin Danielson Feminine Hygiene Product Safety Act.[74] Data would also be required from manufacturers regarding the presence of dioxins, synthetic fibers, chlorine, and other components (including contaminants and substances used as fragrances, colorants, dyes, and preservatives) in their feminine hygiene products.

Society and culture

[edit]

Tampon tax

[edit]
Main article: Tampon tax

"Tampon tax" refers to tampons' lack of tax exempt status that is often in place for other basic need products. Several political statements have been made in regards to tampon use. In 2000, a 10% goods and services tax (GST) was introduced in Australia. While lubricant, condoms, incontinence pads and numerous medical items were regarded as essential and exempt from the tax, tampons continue to be charged GST. Prior to the introduction of GST, several states also applied a luxury tax to tampons at a higher rate than GST. Specific petitions such as "Axe the Tampon Tax" have been created to oppose this tax, and the tax was removed in 2019.[75] In the UK, tampons are subject to a zero rate of value added tax (VAT), as opposed to the standard rate of 20% applied to the vast majority of products sold in the country.[76] The UK was previously bound by the EU VAT directive, which required a minimum of 5% VAT on sanitary products. Since 1 January 2021, VAT applied to menstrual sanitary products has been 0%.

In Canada, the federal government has removed the goods and services tax (GST) and harmonized sales tax (HST) from tampons and other menstrual hygiene products as of 1 July 2015.[77]

In the US, access to menstrual products such as pads and tampons and taxes added on these products, have also been controversial topics especially when it comes to people with low income.[78] Laws for exempting such taxes differ vastly from state to state.[78] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has published a report discussing these laws and listing the different guidelines followed by institutions such as schools, shelters, and prisons when providing menstrual goods.[78]

The report by ACLU also discusses the case of Kimberly Haven who was a former prisoner that had a hysterectomy after she had experienced toxic shock syndrome (TSS) due to using handmade tampons from toilet paper in prison.[79][78] Her testimony supported a Maryland bill that is intended to increase access of menstrual products for imprisoned women.[78]

Etymology

[edit]

Historically, the word "tampon" originated from the medieval French word "tampion", meaning a piece of cloth to stop a hole, a stamp, plug, or stopper.[80]

Virginity

[edit]

There is a misconception described as sexist[81][82] that using a tampon rids a person of their virginity. This is because some cultures regard virginity as indicated by whether the hymen is still intact, and may believe that inserting a tampon breaks the hymen. However, this belief is not rooted in medical science. The hymen, a thin membrane partially covering the vaginal opening, varies greatly in thickness, elasticity, and shape from person to person. It almost never blocks the entire vaginal opening, stretches and thins naturally over time, and can stretch or break due to non-sexual everyday activities such as exercise;[83][84] conversely, it may not break even after penetrative sexual intercourse, as it is able to stretch.[85] Therefore, the presence or condition of the hymen is not an indicator of virginity.

Medical professionals have pointed out that misconceptions about the hymen lead to medically unfounded and harmful practices such as virginity testing and hymenoplasty.[86]

[edit]

In Stephen King's novel Carrie, the title character is bullied for menstruating and is bombarded with tampons and pads by her peers.

In 1985, Tampon Applicator Creative Klubs International (TACKI) was established to develop creative uses for discarded, non-biodegradable, plastic feminine hygiene products, commonly referred to as "beach whistles". TACKI President Jay Critchley launched his corporation in order to develop a global folk art movement and cottage industry, promote awareness of these throwaway objects washed up on beaches worldwide from faulty sewage systems, create the world's largest collection of discarded plastic tampon applicators, and ban their manufacture and sale through legislative action. The project and artwork was carried out during numerous site-specific performances and installations.[87]

Intersectionality

[edit]

Gender inclusion

[edit]

Tampons are traditionally marketed as products for women, conserving the idea that menstruation only affects cisgender women, or women who were assigned female at birth and continue to identify with that label. This framing marginalizes transgender men, nonbinary individuals, and genderqueer people who menstruate. This makes their experiences with menstruation largely invisible in public discourse, marketing, and product design. Addressing gender inclusion in the context of tampons involves examining societal stigmas, access challenges, and evolving efforts to create more inclusive spaces for all people who menstruate. In recent years, when discussing periods, academia has shifted terminology to be more inclusive, thus beginning to use the term "menstruators" instead of "women."[88]

Additionally, public restrooms often reinforce a binary understanding of gender. Men's restrooms rarely, if ever, provide menstrual product dispensers, leaving many queer people without access to tampons when needed.[89] When using the women's bathroom in attempt to have access to period products, transgender and nonbinary individuals may face safety concerns or harassment for accessing restrooms that do not align with their gender identity.

Some menstrual product companies, such as Aunt Flow and Thinx, have started using inclusive language like "menstrual products" instead of "feminine hygiene products." These efforts aim to normalize menstruation for all individuals who experience it, regardless of gender. In marketing, efforts to redesign tampon packaging to be more gender-neutral help make these products less alienating for trans and nonbinary users.[90] Removing pink or floral designs, for example, makes them more approachable.

Socioeconomic disparities

[edit]

Access to tampons is shaped by significant socioeconomic disparities, with systemic barriers disproportionately affecting individuals from low-income backgrounds. These disparities show up in various ways, including affordability challenges, stigmatization, and inadequate infrastructure.[91] Addressing these issues requires recognizing how economic inequality intersects with social factors to restrict access to menstrual products like tampons.

A large issue in our society is period poverty, which refers to the lack of access to menstrual products, hygiene facilities, and education due to financial constraints. It is a prevalent issue in both developing and developed countries, where many people cannot afford tampons and other menstrual products. In many low-income communities, individuals often miss school, work, or social activities due to a lack of menstrual products. This contributes to cycles of poverty, as menstruation becomes a barrier to education and economic opportunities.[92] Globally, an estimated 500 million people face period poverty. In United States, studies have shown that one in five students have struggled to afford menstrual products.[93]

Many schools, shelters, and prisons fail to provide tampons for free or in sufficient quantities.[94] Low-income students, in particular, may resort to unsafe alternatives like paper towels or rags, which can lead to health risks such as infections. Homeless menstruators face unique challenges, as they often lack both the financial means to purchase tampons and access to clean facilities for changing them.[95] Nonprofits like The Homeless Period Project work to distribute tampons to these populations, but systemic support is still lacking.

Racial inequities

[edit]

Racial inequities in access to menstrual products are shaped by a complex interplay of systemic racism, socioeconomic disparities, cultural stigmas, and healthcare inequality. These inequities disproportionately affect menstruators from marginalized backgrounds, limiting their access to essential products.

Menstruators from racialized communities are more likely to live in poverty due to historical economic inequities. This economic disadvantage makes purchasing tampons and other menstrual products a financial burden.[96] This is because in some predominantly Black and Brown communities, menstrual products may be sold at higher prices due to fewer retail options and the "poverty tax," where essential goods cost more in underserved areas.

Cultural stigmas around menstruation can be particularly pronounced in certain racial and ethnic communities, where periods may be considered taboo or inappropriate to discuss openly.[97] This silence can discourage menstruators from seeking tampons or advocating for their needs. In some cultures, tampons are viewed with suspicion. They are linked to myths about virginity or seen as inappropriate for younger menstruators. These beliefs can limit the willingness or ability of individuals in certain racial groups to access tampons.

Additionally, schools in marginalized racial communities often lack comprehensive menstrual education programs. This lack of education can leave menstruators unaware of the variety of menstrual products available, or unsure how to use them safely. On top of that, racial biases in the education system may contribute to a lack of attention to the menstrual health needs of students from different racial groups.[98]

There are many other aspects of racial inequity when it comes to menstrual product education and accessibility. People of color are less likely to have access to adequate gynecological care, and more likely to face discrimination in the health world regardless of their health issue. To add onto that, the diverse needs of people from ethnic backgrounds have historically been neglected by marketing companies.[99] When advertising does attempt to include people of color, it often fails to address the unique cultural stigmas, challenges, or values that shape their experiences with menstruation.

Tampons and disability

[edit]

Individuals with conditions that affect fine motor skills or hand strength (e.g., arthritis, cerebral palsy, or multiple sclerosis) may find it difficult to unwrap, insert, or remove tampons.[100] The small size of tampons and their applicators can be a significant barrier. Most tampons are designed with the assumption of able-bodied users, lacking features like ergonomic grips, adaptive applicators, or designs that accommodate reduced hand mobility. Public restrooms, especially those not compliant with accessibility standards, may not provide sufficient space or the necessary support structures (e.g., grab bars) for disabled individuals to manage tampon insertion or removal. People who struggle with vision may encounter difficulties identifying tampon sizes, brands, or instructions due to the lack of braille on packaging or tactile features on the products themselves. For menstruators with hearing impairments, they may miss out on important product usage information if it is only provided through audio formats or poorly captioned content.

People with intellectual or developmental disabilities may require additional support to learn how to use tampons safely and effectively. Complex instructions, such as proper insertion angles and removal timing, can be challenging to navigate without guidance. Caregivers or support workers may need to assist disabled menstruators with tampon usage. However, this raises concerns about autonomy, privacy, and dignity, as menstruation is a deeply personal experience.

Certain disabilities or chronic illnesses (e.g., endometriosis, pelvic floor disorders, or interstitial cystitis) may make tampon use uncomfortable or painful. These conditions can limit access to tampons as a viable option for menstrual care. Some disabled individuals have heightened sensitivity to tampon materials (e.g., rayon, chlorine bleach, or fragrances), which can increase discomfort or lead to allergic reactions.

Disabled menstruators often face compounded stigma, as society tends to marginalize both disabled individuals and discussions around menstruation.[101] This can lead to isolation and discomfort in seeking out appropriate menstrual products.

Activism and advocacy

[edit]

Advocacy around tampons intersects with broader movements for menstrual equity. These movements aim to dismantle the societal, economic, and cultural barriers that perpetuate inequality. Activism plays a critical role in shaping policy and ensuring that tampons are accessible and affordable for all menstruators. Many advocacy groups campaign to remove sales tax on tampons and other menstrual products, arguing that these items are essential healthcare products rather than luxury goods.[102] Success stories include states and countries that have already abolished the tax, setting a precedent for global change.[103]

Campaigns also work to normalize conversations about menstruation, dismantling stigma that has historically silenced discussions around menstrual products. Destigmatization efforts include public education campaigns, art installations, and social media movements aimed at reframing menstruation as a natural aspect of human health.[104] Advocates are pushing for the portrayal of menstruation in mainstream media, emphasizing diverse menstruators' experiences and highlighting the role of tampons in empowering individuals to manage their periods effectively.

Organizations like Period: The Menstrual Movement and Menstrual Equity for All are working to raise awareness about the need for inclusivity in menstruation-related discussions. Advocating for free menstrual products in schools, prisons, and public spaces, particularly in areas serving predominantly racialized populations, can help bridge gaps in access. Schools and healthcare providers must offer menstrual care that reflect the cultural challenges faced by diverse racial groups, ensuring that tampons are accessible to all.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tampon

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A tampon is a menstrual hygiene product consisting of a compressed plug of absorbent material, typically , , or a blend of both, designed to be inserted into the to absorb menstrual blood and other vaginal fluids. Tampons are available in various absorbency levels—light, regular, super, and super plus—to match menstrual flow intensity, and may include an applicator made of plastic or cardboard for ease of insertion or be applicator-free for direct finger placement. Patented in 1931 by physician , who developed a bullet-shaped with a removal string, tampons were first commercially produced under the brand in 1936, marking a shift from external to internal absorption methods that allowed greater discretion and activity during . Despite their widespread use, tampons have been linked to menstrual (TSS), a rare but potentially fatal bacterial infection primarily caused by Staphylococcus aureus toxins, with cases surging in the late 1970s and early 1980s due to superabsorbent varieties like Procter & Gamble's Rely, leading to its 1980 recall, FDA regulations on absorbency labeling, and manufacturer reforms such as reduced use and added warnings. Incidence of menstrual TSS has since declined dramatically through these interventions and user education on changing tampons every 4-8 hours to minimize bacterial growth risks, though non-menstrual TSS cases persist and recent analyses have identified trace toxic metals like lead and in some tampons, potentially from environmental contamination in raw materials, prompting calls for further manufacturing scrutiny.

Design and Materials

Construction and Types

Tampons are constructed by compressing an absorbent pledget into a cylindrical shape, with a retrieval string attached to one end for removal. The manufacturing process begins with blending and carding absorbent fibers into a web, which is then cut and folded around the string before high-pressure compression forms the final bullet-shaped core. Many designs include a non-woven outer cover over the core to aid insertion and fluid wicking. Tampons are categorized primarily by insertion method into applicator and digital types. Applicator tampons incorporate a disposable tube system, consisting of an outer barrel and plunger, to guide the tampon into place; these applicators are made from biodegradable or smooth . Digital tampons lack an applicator, requiring manual finger insertion, which results in a more compact and reduced waste. Some applicator designs feature rounded tips or grip ridges for ease of use, while digital variants often emphasize flexibility for body adaptation.

Absorbency Ratings and Testing

Tampon absorbency is quantified through the Syngina test method, a standardized procedure that measures the product's capacity to retain fluid under simulated vaginal conditions. In this test, the tampon is inserted into a cylindrical approximating the vaginal canal, then exposed to a continuous drip of 0.9% (saline) solution at a controlled rate until saturation, after which the weight gain in grams is calculated by comparing the pre- and post-test masses. This method, detailed in the U.S. (21 CFR 801.430(f)), is required for FDA clearance of tampons and forms the basis for labeling claims, ensuring consistency across manufacturers while correlating absorbency levels to (TSS) risk mitigation. In the United States, FDA regulations categorize tampons by absorbency ranges derived from Syngina testing, with manufacturers required to use descriptive terms that align with these thresholds to guide user selection and minimize TSS incidence by promoting lower-absorbency options for lighter flows. Junior or tampons absorb 6 grams or less of saline; regular absorb 6 to 9 grams; super absorb 9 to 12 grams; super plus absorb 12 to 15 grams; and ultra or maximum exceed 15 grams. These ratings inform product packaging, where numerical grams may also be disclosed voluntarily, though descriptive labels predominate; for instance, a regular tampon is suitable for flows of about 5 to 30 milliliters over 4 to 8 hours, assuming 1 gram of saline approximates 1 milliliter of , though this equivalence is approximate. Internationally, similar protocols under EDANA guidelines or NWSP 350.1.R0 (V2) employ the Syngina method, often in accredited ISO/IEC 17025 laboratories, to verify performance for regulatory compliance in regions like the . Critics of the Syngina method argue it overestimates real-world , as saline lacks the proteins, , and clotting factors in menstrual that impede wicking and retention, potentially leading users to select insufficiently absorbent products or prolong wear times. A 2023 Oregon Health & Science University study, the first to test tampons with defibrinated sheep mimicking human menstrual fluid, revealed that even super-absorbency tampons retained only 10 to 20 milliliters of —far below saline projections—while exhibiting high variability across brands and expansion inconsistencies that could cause leakage or discomfort. Heavy flows exceeding 20 milliliters per two hours may necessitate super plus or multiple products, underscoring the need for user monitoring over reliance on labels. The FDA acknowledges these limitations indirectly by mandating TSS warnings and absorbency disclosure but has not updated testing to incorporate blood-based assays, prioritizing the saline standard's reproducibility despite its causal disconnect from physiological .

Materials Composition

Tampons consist primarily of an absorbent core made from compressed fibers of , , or a blend of both, with being a regenerated cellulosic derived from wood pulp via the viscose process. provides natural absorbency, while enhances fluid retention due to its hydrophilic properties and finer structure, though blends are common to balance cost, capacity, and reduced shedding. The withdrawal string is typically composed of cotton, rayon, or synthetic materials such as nylon or polyester, ensuring durability and ease of removal. An optional overwrap or cover, often a non-woven fabric of polyethylene, polypropylene, or polyester, encases the core to minimize direct contact with loose fibers and improve insertion. Sewing threads and fiber finishes, which may include surfactants for wetting, are used in construction but are present in trace amounts. Under U.S. (FDA) regulations, tampons classified as Class II medical devices must use purified or fibers, free of specified dioxins like 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and residues, with manufacturers required to demonstrate but not full ingredient disclosure on labels. Organic variants substitute certified , avoiding synthetic fibers and chemical processing agents. Applicators, when present, are separate components made of ( or ) or biodegradable cardboard, not integral to the absorbent composition.

Usage and Application

Insertion and Hygiene Practices

Tampons are inserted into the vagina to absorb menstrual flow, either using an applicator or digitally with fingers. Applicator-style tampons, which use a cardboard or plastic tube, facilitate insertion by holding the compressed tampon for guided placement; users hold the grip, insert the tip into the vaginal opening at an angle toward the lower back while relaxed, and push the inner tube (plunger) to release the tampon. Digital tampons, lacking an applicator, are inserted by grasping the tampon with clean fingers and pushing it into the vagina following its natural curve, often preferred for compactness and reduced environmental impact from disposable tubes. Proper hygiene minimizes infection risks, including bacterial overgrowth leading to . Hands must be washed with soap and water before unwrapping and inserting a tampon, and again after removal, to reduce bacterial transfer. Tampons should only be used during active , never for vaginal dryness or other purposes, and the lowest absorbency suitable for flow must be selected to avoid prolonged retention. Tampons require changing every 4 to 8 hours, regardless of flow, with no retention exceeding 8 hours to prevent bacterial proliferation in the warm, moist vaginal environment. Upon insertion, the tampon string should remain external for easy removal by gentle pulling after ; incomplete insertion can cause discomfort or leakage, while touching the absorbent tip should be minimized to limit . Used tampons are wrapped securely and disposed in trash receptacles, not flushed, to avoid plumbing issues and maintain sanitary handling.

Frequency and Capacity Management

Tampons are regulated by the U.S. (FDA) with standardized absorbency ratings based on the grams of simulated menstrual fluid they can absorb before reaching a specified leakage point, ensuring consumers can compare products across brands. These ratings include light (6 grams or less), regular (greater than 6 to 9 grams), super (greater than 9 to 12 grams), super plus (greater than 12 to 15 grams), and ultra (greater than 15 to 18 grams), with products exceeding 18 grams lacking a mandated term.
Absorbency TermGrams of Fluid Absorbed
≤6
Regular>6–9
Super>9–12
Super Plus>12–15
Ultra>15–18
Capacity management involves selecting the lowest absorbency level sufficient to absorb menstrual flow without causing leakage or dryness, as higher absorbency tampons can increase risks if overused relative to flow volume. Users assess fit by monitoring saturation: if a tampon remains comfortable and leak-free for up to 4–6 hours during moderate flow, it matches capacity needs; persistent dryness after 4 hours signals excessive absorbency, prompting a switch to a lower rating. On heavier flow days, super or higher ratings may be necessary, but alternation with or more frequent changes is advised to avoid over-reliance on high-capacity products. Frequency guidelines emphasize changing tampons every 4 to 8 hours, regardless of apparent saturation, to minimize and associated health risks such as (TSS). Exceeding 8 hours, including overnight use beyond this window, is discouraged; instead, users should insert a fresh tampon before and replace it upon waking, or opt for during low-flow or nighttime periods. During heavy flow, changes every 4–6 hours or sooner if leakage occurs help maintain and prevent overflow, with evidence from clinical observations linking prolonged retention to elevated TSS incidence prior to standardized practices. Proper management thus balances individual flow variability—typically 30–80 milliliters over a cycle—with these timed intervals to optimize and efficacy.

Health Considerations

Toxic Shock Syndrome Risks

Toxic shock syndrome (TSS) is a rare but potentially fatal multisystem illness primarily caused by exotoxins produced by bacteria, with menstrual TSS specifically linked to vaginal tampon use in menstruating individuals. The condition manifests abruptly with symptoms including high fever (>38.9°C), , , , , and multi-organ involvement, often progressing to shock if untreated. In tampon-associated cases, the colonize the vaginal mucosa, and tampon materials facilitate toxin production by providing a nutrient-rich, oxygen-permeable environment that promotes S. aureus proliferation and release of (TSST-1). This mechanism differs from non-menstrual TSS, as tampon insertion introduces oxygen into the otherwise anaerobic vaginal environment, enhancing staphylococcal growth compared to pad use alone. Epidemiological data indicate that tampon use elevates TSS risk, with case-control studies showing odds ratios up to 20-fold higher for continuous tampon wear versus no tampon use during . High-absorbency tampons, particularly those left in place beyond 8 hours, correlate with increased incidence due to prolonged bacterial stagnation and accumulation; for instance, a 1980 CDC investigation found that users of certain superabsorbent brands like Rely faced markedly higher risks, prompting their market withdrawal in 1980 and a subsequent 90% decline in menstrual TSS cases by the mid-1980s. Current U.S. incidence of staphylococcal TSS hovers at 0.8–3.4 cases per 100,000 population annually, predominantly affecting females aged 10–34, though menstrual cases now comprise about half of total TSS, reflecting regulatory shifts like absorbency labeling and reduced use. Recent French surveillance (2011–2015) confirmed persistent associations, with 42% of menstrual TSS cases involving tampons worn overnight or for extended periods exceeding recommended intervals. Key modifiable risk factors include tampon absorbency level, duration of use, and frequency of changes; studies demonstrate that selecting the lowest necessary absorbency reduces bacterial colonization potential, while alternating with sanitary pads lowers by allowing vaginal aeration and hygiene breaks. Misuse patterns, such as habitual overnight retention or ignoring flow-based capacity guidelines, amplify odds, as evidenced by a 2020 analysis linking higher TSS rates to tampons exceeding 10–15 grams absorbency when lower options suffice. Non-modifiable factors like nasal carriage of TSST-1-producing S. aureus strains (prevalent in 10–20% of healthy individuals) interact with tampon exposure, but underscores device-related cofactors over inherent bacterial prevalence. Mortality remains 1–4% with prompt and supportive care, but delays in recognition—due to initial flu-like symptoms—contribute to higher complication rates, including renal failure and in severe cases. Prevention strategies emphasize behavioral adjustments: tampons should be changed every 4–6 hours (or sooner for heavy flow), using the minimal absorbency to avoid unnecessary retention, and avoiding continuous use throughout . Regulatory measures post-1980, including FDA-mandated absorbency testing and warnings on , have sustained low incidence, though sporadic clusters underscore ongoing vigilance; for example, a 2018 Wisconsin outbreak traced to prolonged tampon use prompted renewed alerts. Individuals with prior TSS face recurrence risks up to 30% without precautions, necessitating avoidance of tampons altogether in such histories. While tampons do not inherently cause TSS, their mechanical role in fostering conditions for toxin-mediated illness warrants these evidence-based mitigations over unsubstantiated alternatives.

Chemical and Metal Exposure

A 2024 peer-reviewed study analyzed 30 tampons from 14 brands purchased in the United States and , detecting 16 metals including lead, , , , , and in varying concentrations across samples. Lead, for which no safe exposure level exists, was present in every tampon tested, with concentrations up to 120 micrograms per gram in some organic varieties, potentially higher than non-organic due to in . and , known carcinogens and reproductive toxicants, were also widespread, though absolute levels varied by brand and type (organic vs. non-organic). These metals likely originate from environmental contamination during cotton or production, as plants absorb them from , and processes do not fully remove them; the vaginal mucosa's high permeability may facilitate absorption, raising concerns for localized or systemic exposure during menstrual use. In response to these findings, the U.S. initiated an investigation in October 2024 to assess metal content and potential health risks in tampons, noting no prior federal requirement for such testing despite recommendations against residues. While direct causation of adverse effects remains unestablished—requiring further longitudinal data—the presence of bioavailable toxicants like lead, which can impair neurological and reproductive function, underscores the need for regulatory limits, as tampon use affects up to 80% of menstruating individuals monthly. Beyond metals, tampons contain trace chemicals from manufacturing, including endocrine-disrupting compounds such as , , parabens, and volatile organic compounds, detected in multiple studies of menstrual products. A 2023 systematic review of 15 studies confirmed measurable levels of these in tampons, often from plastic applicators or synthetic fibers, with potential for hormone disruption given the vagina's absorptive efficiency exceeding that of skin or . Dioxins and furans, byproducts of historical bleaching, persist at low levels (e.g., 0.3–7.1 pg/g in regular absorbency tampons), though modern elemental chlorine-free processes have reduced them to trivial amounts comparable to unbleached ; pesticide residues from conventional farming, including , have been identified but are unregulated beyond FDA voluntary guidelines. Fragrances and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from processing also appear, contributing to in some observational data linking tampon use to elevated biomarkers. Overall, while exposures are typically below thresholds, chronic low-dose accumulation warrants scrutiny, particularly absent mandatory chemical screening.

Other Health Risks and Mitigations

Tampons can cause vaginal dryness by absorbing not only menstrual but also the vagina's lubricating fluids, particularly when using higher-absorbency products or during light flow periods. This dryness may lead to , discomfort during insertion or removal, and micro-abrasions on vaginal walls, exacerbating vulnerability to minor infections or further discomfort. A 2016 review noted that prolonged use of absorbent tampons disrupts vaginal moisture balance, with symptoms persisting as long as usage continues. Allergic reactions or to tampon components, such as synthetic fibers like , in applicators, or added fragrances, occur infrequently but manifest as localized itching, redness, swelling, or burning in the vulvovaginal area. These reactions stem from sensitivity to materials rather than , with case reports indicating resolution upon switching products; systemic spread is rare. from dermatological literature attributes such irritant or to prolonged exposure to non-cotton fibers or chemicals, though incidence rates remain low in population studies. To mitigate dryness and irritation, users should select the lowest absorbency tampon suitable for flow volume and change them every 4-6 hours, avoiding overuse during scant bleeding when pads may suffice. Alternating with external pads, especially overnight, preserves natural vaginal moisture and reduces abrasion risk. For suspected allergies, discontinuing the product and testing hypoallergenic or 100% cotton alternatives, while consulting a healthcare provider for patch testing, effectively resolves symptoms in most cases. General hygiene practices, including handwashing before insertion and avoiding douching, further minimize irritation from bacterial overgrowth or residue buildup.

Environmental Impact

Waste Production and Decomposition

In the United States, an estimated 7 billion tampons are discarded annually, alongside 12 billion menstrual , generating substantial non-biodegradable waste destined primarily for landfills. Globally, menstruating individuals dispose of between 5,000 and 15,000 tampons and over a lifetime, contributing to billions of units entering waste streams each year. In regions with high tampon adoption, such as , this equates to over 20 billion combined disposable menstrual products annually, with tampons comprising a significant portion due to their prevalence among users aged 20-39. A notable fraction of tampon waste bypasses landfills through improper flushing, exacerbating infrastructure damage. In the , approximately 2.5 million tampons are flushed daily, accounting for a substantial share of the 1.5 to 2 billion sanitary items entering sewers yearly. Surveys indicate that up to 80% of conventional tampons in and the are disposed of via toilets, leading to sewer blockages that cost billions in maintenance and release plastics into waterways. Tampon is protracted owing to their composition of synthetic fibers like , polypropylene strings, and plastic applicators, which resist microbial breakdown. In landfills, where over 80% of menstrual products in and the accumulate, these items persist for 500 to 800 years under anaerobic conditions that inhibit natural degradation processes. Flushed tampons fare similarly, fragmenting into during or environmental exposure rather than fully decomposing, as evidenced by lifecycle assessments showing minimal even for cotton-based components encased in plastics. This slow breakdown amplifies long-term waste accumulation, with no verifiable evidence of rapid in controlled or natural settings.

Pollution from Materials and Disposal

Tampons incorporate materials such as , , and synthetic polymers, which can harbor trace toxic metals including lead, , , mercury, and others, as identified in a 2024 peer-reviewed analysis of 30 tampons across 18 brands from the US and international markets; these metals, detected in all samples at varying concentrations (e.g., lead up to 120 ng/g in some organic variants), pose risks of environmental release during runoff, use, or degradation. Synthetic additives like and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have also been found in tampons, contributing persistent organic pollutants that resist breakdown and can bioaccumulate in ecosystems if leached from discarded products. Residues from pesticide-treated (e.g., levels in UK tampons exceeding water legal limits by up to 40 times in a 2025 report) further introduce herbicides into waste streams upon disposal. Disposal amplifies these material-based pollutants through fragmentation and leaching. Tampons and applicators, often containing and plastics, degrade into microplastic fibers and nanoplastics; testing of 10 tampon brands revealed releases of billions of particles per unit, with estimates of up to 17 billion nanoplastics per tampon under mechanical stress simulating use and waste processing, entering waterways via landfills or . Flushing, practiced by up to 40% of users despite recommendations against it, causes blockages and overflows, discharging intact tampons and fibers into rivers and oceans, where they contribute to and chemical diffusion—evidenced by tampon remnants in coastal cleanups and treatment plant effluents. disposal, the primary method for non-flushed units, leads to slow (over 500 years for synthetics), from organic components, and potential groundwater contamination from metal and PFAS migration, as non-biodegradable elements persist and leach under anaerobic conditions.

Historical Development

Pre-20th Century Precursors

The earliest documented precursors to modern tampons appear in ancient Egyptian medical texts, where women used softened strips inserted vaginally to absorb menstrual blood, as referenced in the dating to approximately 1550 BCE. This material, derived from the plant abundant along the , was softened for insertion, functioning as a rudimentary internal absorbent though lacking disposability or standardization. Such practices reflect practical adaptations to available natural resources rather than engineered products, with no evidence of widespread manufacturing or hygiene protocols akin to later developments. In , women employed soft wool or lint formed into tampon-like plugs for vaginal insertion during , a method noted in historical accounts of gynecological care. Wool's absorbency made it suitable, but its reusability likely posed risks without modern sterilization, underscoring the era's limited understanding of microbial causation in . Similarly, women reportedly wrapped lint around small wooden sticks to create insertable absorbents, combining with a rudimentary applicator for ease of use. Other civilizations developed parallel internal solutions using local vegetation: Indonesian women utilized softened vegetable fibers, while some African and Japanese accounts describe grass, paper, or sponge-based inserts predating 1900. These precursors prioritized absorption over comfort or safety, often requiring manual preparation and reuse, and were constrained by cultural taboos that obscured detailed . Natural sea sponges, harvested from the Mediterranean, served as reusable vaginal absorbents in Greek and Roman contexts, rinsed post-use but susceptible to bacterial retention. Across these examples, efficacy depended on material and individual , with no empirical data on flow capacity or complication rates surviving from the period.

20th Century Commercialization

Dr. Earle Cleveland Haas, an American osteopathic physician, developed the first disposable tampon with an applicator after observing his wife's use of makeshift internal absorbents during . He filed a for the "catamenial device" on November 19, 1931, which was granted on September 12, 1933, as U.S. Patent No. 1,926,900. The design featured compressed wadding encased in a two-part applicator tube for hygienic insertion, addressing prior limitations of non-applicator versions that required manual handling. Haas initially produced samples in his home but lacked resources for mass production, leading him to sell the patent rights in 1934 to Gertrude Tenderich, a former nurse and entrepreneur. Tenderich founded the Tampax Manufacturing Corporation in Denver, Colorado, and relocated production to New York by 1936, when Tampax tampons became commercially available in U.S. drugstores at 25 cents per box of 10. Early manufacturing used cellucotton—repurposed from World War I bandage material—compressed into bullet-shaped plugs, with sales initially limited to targeted advertising in medical journals and discreet packaging to navigate menstrual taboos. Marketing focused on liberation from belts and , promoting for swimming, sports, and daily activities, with ads claiming "no pins, no , no " and internal placement to avoid external bulk. Despite this, adoption was slow through the 1930s and 1940s due to physician skepticism, religious objections from groups like the , and limited consumer education; by 1945, tampons accounted for less than 10% of the U.S. market dominated by . Growth accelerated post-World War II with increased female workforce participation and endorsements from gynecologists, reaching broader acceptance by the 1950s as applicator designs improved hygiene perceptions. Competitors entered later in the century, including Johnson & Johnson's Modess tampons in the 1940s (digital insertion without applicator) and Playtex's plastic-applicator versions introduced in 1969, expanding options amid rising demand that saw U.S. tampon sales surpass pads by the 1970s. Innovations like super-absorbent by in 1975—using carboxymethylcellulose for higher capacity—further commercialized the category but later faced recalls due to associations.

Recent Innovations and Studies

In 2024, Daye introduced the Diagnostic Tampon, a single-use product utilizing (PCR) testing to enable at-home screening for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), human papillomavirus (HPV), and vaginal imbalances by analyzing absorbed menstrual fluid. This innovation, recognized as TIME's Best Invention of 2024, aims to improve accessibility to reproductive health diagnostics without requiring clinical visits, though its accuracy depends on processing of returned samples. Efforts toward have driven developments in biodegradable materials, including VYLD's July 2025 launch of the first tampon derived from , designed for rapid and reduced environmental persistence compared to conventional or products. Concurrently, brands have advanced compact tampon designs with plant-based applicators and cores free of synthetic additives, enhancing portability and user comfort while addressing absorbency needs through refined fiber compression techniques. These changes respond to consumer demand for eco-friendly alternatives, with market analyses projecting sustained growth in such segments through 2033 due to material innovations prioritizing biodegradability over components. A 2024 pilot study published in Environment International analyzed 30 tampons from 14 brands and detected 16 metals, including toxic elements like lead (up to 120 ng/g), , and , across all samples, attributing presence to potential contamination during manufacturing or sourcing. However, the study emphasized uncertainty regarding metal leaching into the vaginal mucosa or systemic absorption, as in simulations showed variable release rates insufficient to quantify risks definitively, calling for further on exposure pathways. Independent reviews of the findings, including from regulatory perspectives, affirm that tampons remain safe for directed use pending additional data, with no established causal link to adverse outcomes like elevated metal burdens in users. Conceptual advancements in "smart" tampons, such as sensor-embedded prototypes for real-time monitoring of biomarkers like or pathogens, have emerged from academic prototypes, including a 2022 Johns Hopkins design integrating for detection via fluid analysis, though commercial viability remains limited by integration challenges and regulatory hurdles. Broader menstrual tech integrations, like app-linked data from diagnostic variants, underscore a shift toward data-driven health insights, but empirical validation of long-term efficacy lags behind traditional absorbency-focused designs.

Economic Factors

Manufacturing and Retail Costs

The manufacturing cost of a single tampon typically ranges from $0.03 to $0.12 per unit when produced at scale in automated facilities. Raw materials, including , rayon for the absorbent core, withdrawal strings, and optional applicators, account for 30–50% of total costs, or $0.015–$0.05 per unit; fluctuations in prices for these fibers can significantly impact this component. Labor and overhead, encompassing operational staff and utilities, contribute $0.01–$0.04 per unit, while machinery and add $0.005–$0.02; higher reduces these expenses. Packaging materials for individual wrappers, boxes, and inserts cost $0.01–$0.03 per unit, and measures—including testing for absorbency, sterility, and —range from $0.005–$0.015 per unit. Production scale influences overall economics, with larger volumes lowering per-unit quality control and overhead costs through ; bulk material sourcing and non-organic fibers further minimize expenses, whereas variants raise costs to $0.08–$0.12 per unit. In retail markets, tampons sold for an average of $8.29 per pack as of 2024, up 36% from 2019 levels amid , raw material volatility, and disruptions. Standard retail packs contain 16 to 40 tampons, yielding per-unit prices of roughly $0.20 to $0.50, varying by absorbency level, applicator type, , and retailer; bulk or store-brand options can approach $0.16–$0.21 per unit. The difference between and retail pricing incorporates fees, , transportation, regulatory overhead, and profit margins for manufacturers and retailers, with global market dynamics amplifying costs in regions facing import dependencies or tariffs.

Taxation Policies and Debates

The "" refers to (VAT) or sales taxes applied to menstrual hygiene products such as tampons, which advocates argue unfairly burdens women by taxing essential items as non-essentials, while equivalents for men like blades often receive exemptions or lower rates. Campaigns to these taxes gained momentum in the , framing the policy as discriminatory and contributing to period poverty, with activists in multiple countries petitioning governments and legislatures. For instance, , 15 states introduced bills in 2016 alone, leading to exemptions in states like New York (2016) and (2020), though opponents cited revenue losses estimated at millions annually per state. In the , VAT rates on tampons historically ranged from 5% to 27%, with the bloc mandating a minimum 5% on sanitary products until reforms allowed reductions; by 2022, several members like lowered rates from 19% to 7% in 2020, citing gender equity, though maintained 27% as of 2025. The abolished its 5% VAT on tampons effective January 1, 2021, following Brexit-enabled flexibility and years of , but post-repeal data indicated prices did not fall as much as anticipated due to retailer adjustments. further reduced its rate from 25.5% to 14% on January 1, 2025, amid ongoing debates over fiscal impacts. In the United States, taxation remains state-dependent, with no federal sales tax but 18 states imposing it as of May 2025, ranging from 4% to nearly 10% in places like Louisiana; exemptions now cover 32 states plus Washington, D.C., including recent additions like Missouri (effective October 1, 2025) and Texas. Empirical studies on repeals, such as New Jersey's 2005 exemption, show increased product purchases but no proportional price drops and net revenue shortfalls for governments, suggesting limited relief for low-income women without targeted subsidies. Globally, over 20 countries including Canada (2015), Australia (2019), and Mexico (2022) have eliminated such taxes, often after sustained campaigns, yet critics argue reallocating general revenue funds might more efficiently address affordability without distorting markets.

Cultural and Social Dimensions

Etymology and Terminology

The term "tampon" entered English in the mid-19th century from French tampon, a nasalized variant of tapon or tampion (Middle French for "plug" or "stopper"), ultimately derived from Old French tape ("plug") with possible Germanic roots linked to words meaning to tap or stop up, evoking the function of blocking or sealing. Initially, it denoted a wad of absorbent material, such as cotton or lint, used medically to stanch bleeding from wounds or orifices by absorbing fluids and applying pressure, a usage documented in surgical contexts by the 1860s. In the context of menstrual management, "tampon" was adapted in the early for cylindrical, internally inserted absorbent devices designed to absorb vaginal blood flow, building on prior medical applications but distinguishing the product from external alternatives like sanitary napkins. This shift coincided with efforts, such as the 1931 for applicator-based tampons by , which standardized the term for consumer use rather than broader historical precursors like softened or wool plugs, which lacked the specific nomenclature. Terminology for menstrual tampons emphasizes functionality and absorbency, with formal variants like "catamenial tampon" (from Greek katamenia, meaning monthly flow) appearing in and literature to specify menstrual intent, though everyday usage defaults to "tampon" alone. Distinctions include "digital tampon" for insertion by fingers versus "applicator tampon" for tube-assisted placement, and classifications by absorbency (e.g., light, regular, super) mandated by regulators like the FDA since 1981 to guide selection based on flow volume. Brand-derived terms, such as (from "tampon" plus "pack"), further entrenched the word, while euphemistic phrasing like "internal protection" persisted in early to navigate taboos around direct reference to .

Perceptions of Virginity and Taboos

In numerous conservative cultures, particularly in and , tampons have been perceived as a threat to female due to the belief that their insertion ruptures the , a thin often culturally equated with premarital . This persists in regions where attaches to perceived loss of before , leading many unmarried women to avoid internal menstrual products in favor of external pads; for instance, in parts of , the notion that tampons equate to defloration discourages their use among adolescents. Similarly, in communities, traditional values emphasizing integrity as a marker of purity contribute to low tampon adoption rates, with only a fraction of women opting for them despite availability. Religious contexts have historically reinforced such perceptions, as seen in mid-20th-century Catholic teachings where some condemned tampons for unmarried women on grounds of compromising , associating internal insertion with sexual impurity akin to . In Orthodox Jewish and certain Islamic communities, analogous concerns arise from interpretations prioritizing physical markers of , though mainstream rulings in do not prohibit tampons outright, viewing as a state of sexual inexperience rather than condition. These taboos reflect broader menstrual stigmas, where internal products symbolize a breach of bodily or purity, prompting families to enforce pad use to preserve social standing. Empirical studies indicate that while tampons can stretch or partially tear the in some —depending on its elasticity and prior activities like —the alteration does not universally occur and bears no causal relation to sexual . A forensic of 50 sexually inactive girls found hymenal changes attributable to tampon use in cases of frequent insertion, challenging of no effect but underscoring that hymens vary widely and often lack diagnostic value for . Perceptions endure, however, due to causal chains of cultural enforcement: fear of hymen exams or familial scrutiny incentivizes avoidance, perpetuating the "beginner " marketed against in tampon since the 1990s. In Western societies, education has eroded these views, yet immigrant or conservative subgroups retain them, linking tampon reluctance to broader purity ideologies.

Media Representations and Advocacy Efforts

Tampon advertisements have historically emphasized discretion and absorbency while avoiding direct references to blood, often using blue liquid in demonstrations to maintain euphemistic portrayals of menstruation. Early 20th-century campaigns addressed concerns over virginity, with 1930s ads warning against tampons for unmarried women due to fears of perceived promiscuity, and 1990s Tampax spots explicitly debunking myths that tampon use altered virginity status. This framing reinforced menstrual taboos, portraying periods as something to conceal rather than normalize, though recent shifts toward red liquid in ads, such as Thinx's 2017 campaign, represent limited progress amid ongoing critiques of shame-based marketing. In film and television, tampons and receive infrequent and often stigmatizing depictions, typically limited to comedic or traumatic first-period scenes that highlight embarrassment or horror. The 1976 film Carrie featured one of the earliest onscreen menstrual blood visuals in a scene, triggering and retaliation, which underscored societal disgust rather than routine bodily function. Subsequent examples, such as awkward tampon mishaps in (2007) or emotional first-period moments in My Girl (1991), perpetuate embarrassment tropes, with comprehensive analyses noting over 50 such scenes across media but few portraying as unremarkable. Rare normalizing efforts appear in series like (2020), yet overall underrepresentation sustains cultural silence on tampon use. Advocacy for tampons and menstrual products has centered on combating period poverty—defined as inadequate access to supplies and —and eliminating taxes perceived as discriminatory. Organizations like PERIOD., founded in , partner with over 500 chapters to distribute products and lobby for policies, reporting that 1 in 4 menstruating individuals in the U.S. struggle with access, leading to missed school or work. The Pad Project, established in , focuses globally on supply provision and stigma reduction through education in schools and communities, emphasizing reusable options to address environmental concerns alongside equity. Days for Girls International, active since , has reached over 1 million people with washable kits, prioritizing regions with high poverty rates. Tax abolition campaigns, often framed as gender equity issues, achieved milestones including Canada's removal of the federal GST on tampons and effective July 1, 2015, following activist pressure. In the UK, the 5% VAT—termed the ""—was eliminated January 1, 2021, after a decade-long push by groups like Bloody Good Period, though post-abolition price data indicated minimal consumer savings as retailers retained margins. enacted free provision of products in public facilities via the 2020 Period Products Act, effective from February 2021, influencing similar laws in countries like (2017 tax exemption) and (2018 GST reduction to 12%). These efforts, while increasing visibility, have faced scrutiny for symbolic rather than substantive impact, with studies showing no significant affordability gains in some jurisdictions due to unchanged retail pricing.

References

  1. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/facts-tampons-and-how-use-them-safely
  2. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm?ID=HEB
  3. https://www.nj.gov/health/womenshealth/reproductive-health/periods-menstruation/period-products/tampons.shtml
  4. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/menstrual-tampon
  5. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001651.htm
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5436965/
  7. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/5/6/99-0611_article
  8. https://publichealth.berkeley.edu/articles/spotlight/research/first-study-to-measure-toxic-metals-in-tampons-shows-arsenic-and-lead
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11913127/
  10. https://tamponmanufacturer.com/how-are-tampons-manufactured-step-by-step-process-from-fiber-to-final-product-2/
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-tampon-separated-into-its-components-including-the-A-non-woven-outer-covering-B_fig1_381659180
  12. https://us.getjoni.com/blogs/blog/what-are-digital-tampons
  13. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-tampons/
  14. https://www.ob-tampons.com/
  15. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/menstrual-tampons-and-pads-information-premarket-notification-submissions-510ks-guidance-industry
  16. https://ipstesting.com/find-a-test/nwsp-test-methods/wsp-350-1-tampons-absorbency/
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10546303/
  18. https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-do-tampon-absorbency-ratings-mean-2721890
  19. https://www.edana.org/hubfs/Docs/default-source/absorbent-hygiene-products/femcare-testing-guidelines-final.pdf?hsLang=en
  20. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-studied-menstrual-product-absorbency-realistically-until-now/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10847380/
  22. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/reproductive-health/articles/10.3389/frph.2023.1224421/full
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10319135/
  24. https://www.center4research.org/tampon-safety/
  25. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10570-023-05641-7
  26. https://womensvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Menstrual-product-components-and-ingredients.pdf
  27. https://www.healthline.com/health/how-to-insert-a-tampon
  28. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-to-put-in-a-tampon-for-beginners-tampon-types-and-more
  29. https://flo.health/menstrual-cycle/lifestyle/hygiene-and-beauty/tampons-without-applicators
  30. https://www.ob-tampons.com/blogs/the-blog/users-guide
  31. https://www.cdc.gov/hygiene/about/menstrual-hygiene.html
  32. https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/are-tampons-safe.h00-159700701.html
  33. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/teen/Pages/Tampon-Safety-and-Toxic-Shock-Syndrome.aspx
  34. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/tampons
  35. https://kidshealth.org/en/teens/supplies.html
  36. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/08/25/04-19488/medical-devices-labeling-for-menstrual-tampons-ranges-of-absorbency-change-from-junior-to-light
  37. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-H/part-801/subpart-H/section-801.430
  38. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK565591/table/ch51.Tab1/
  39. https://www.getlabtest.com/news/post/change-tampon-heavy-days
  40. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/15437-toxic-shock-syndrome
  41. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-happens-if-you-leave-a-tampon-in-too-long
  42. https://www.healthline.com/health/how-long-can-you-leave-a-tampon-in
  43. https://www.biocodexmicrobiotainstitute.com/en/menstrual-toxic-shock-syndrome-how-can-it-be-prevented-vaginal-microbiota
  44. https://www.webmd.com/women/toxic-shock-syndrome-treatment-prevention
  45. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459345/
  46. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/cmr.00032-19
  47. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370%2820%2930052-3/fulltext
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10812596/
  49. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000248.htm
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024004355
  51. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/factor/2024/8/feature/3-feature-metals-in-tampons
  52. https://publichealth.berkeley.edu/articles/spotlight/research/fda-launches-tampon-safety-investigation-after-study-finds-toxic-metals
  53. https://www.npr.org/2024/07/11/nx-s1-5036484/tampons-heavy-metals-study
  54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37743685/
  55. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.17668
  56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11390166/
  57. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-019-0452-z
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9876534/
  59. https://www.self.com/story/your-tampons-could-be-drying-out-your-vagina
  60. https://asancup.com/blogs/blogs/vaginal-dryness-and-menstrual-cups
  61. https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/toxic-shock-syndrome-tss
  62. https://sistersrepublic.eu/en/blogs/der-blog-der-sisters/tamponallergie-symptome-und-gegenmassnahmen
  63. https://www.bustle.com/life/183217-can-you-be-allergic-to-tampons-7-things-to-know-if-youre-feeling-itchy-down-south
  64. https://uihc.org/health-topics/contact-dermatitis-vulva
  65. https://www.hackensackmeridianhealth.org/en/healthu/2025/03/18/sanitary-napkins-and-tampon-safety-precautions-every-girl-should-know
  66. https://saalt.com/blogs/news/how-many-tampons-and-pads-end-up-in-landfills-each-year
  67. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijgo.14311
  68. https://www.exploravision.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Region-4_Grade-7-9_Degrade-A-Pad_University-of-Illinois-Laboratory-High-School.pdf
  69. https://fablittlebag.com/blogs/news/2-5-million-tampons-and-1-4-million-pads-are-flushed-in-the-uk-every-day-the-impact-and-how-we-can-do-better
  70. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/21/flushing-tampons-toilet-blocks-drains-sanitary-products
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666789422000277
  72. https://prnewslink.net/releases/12223.html
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11865846/
  74. https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/11/health/tampons-lead-arsenic-plastics-wellness
  75. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/28/toxic-pesticide-levels-found-in-tampons-40-times-higher-than-legal-limit-for-water
  76. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/en/d1en00755f
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10380279/
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5838436/
  79. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-tampons-pads-became-unsustainable-story-of-plastic
  80. https://www.leafscore.com/eco-friendly-bath-products/environmental-impact-of-menstrual-products/
  81. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/periods-menstruation-women-history-ancient-egypt
  82. https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-the-tampon-4018968
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019643991000019X
  84. http://www.mum.org/Tampaxpatent.htm
  85. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/history-of-the-tampon/394334/
  86. http://theinventors.org/library/inventors/bltampons.htm
  87. http://www.mum.org/tamdut38.htm
  88. http://www.historycolorado.org/story/2024/08/16/period-piece-menstruations-hidden-history
  89. https://www.femtechworld.co.uk/entrepreneur/diagnostic-screening-tampon-wins-time-best-invention-for-2024/
  90. https://therecursive.com/valentina-milanova-daye-solving-women-s-health-is-one-of-our-lifetime-s-most-important-challenges/
  91. https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/industry-reports/tampon-market
  92. https://www.intcomedical.com/news/info/How-3-Major-Makers-Are-Engineering-Compact-Tampons.html
  93. https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/tampons-546322
  94. https://www.acmt.net/news/bustle-are-tampons-safe-to-use-heres-what-research-says-about-toxic-metals-chemicals/
  95. https://carey.jhu.edu/articles/artificial-intelligence-smart-tampon-detect-cervical-cancer
  96. https://www.freeperiods.ca/blog/recent-innovations-in-the-world-of-pads-and-tampons
  97. https://tamponmanufacturer.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-manufacture-a-tampon/
  98. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/17/a-crisis-the-us-tampon-shortage-explained
  99. https://nypost.com/2024/07/22/business/tampon-pad-prices-nearly-double-over-last-5-years-due-to-inflation/
  100. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-24/high-tampon-prices-health-concerns-push-women-to-cheaper-alternatives
  101. https://www.wsj.com/business/tampons-pads-price-hikes-de3f3045
  102. https://www.staples.com/Tampax-Tampons/cat_CL164396/0070m
  103. https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2023/11/27/how-price-impacts-individuals-buying-menstrual-products/
  104. https://www.issa.com/articles/price-of-menstrual-products-increasing/
  105. https://www.investopedia.com/tampon-tax-4774993
  106. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37365286
  107. https://joghep.scholasticahq.com/article/137889-period-poverty-in-the-united-states-of-america-a-socio-economic-policy-analysis
  108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292125001047
  109. https://www.statista.com/chart/18192/sales-tax-rates-on-tampons-in-europe/
  110. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tampon-tax-abolished-from-today
  111. https://esthinktank.com/2024/06/17/the-impact-of-stigmatisation-the-tampon-tax-across-the-european-union/
  112. https://allianceforperiodsupplies.org/tampon-tax/
  113. https://www.facebook.com/thekcscene/posts/-missouri-just-made-a-big-change-for-shoppersstarting-october-1-2025-the-state-w/752065811124683/
  114. https://www.npr.org/2019/03/15/703687071/tampon-tax-repeal-benefits-women-but-comes-at-a-cost-to-states
  115. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/what-happened-when-us-state-scrapped-tampon-tax
  116. https://www.context.news/socioeconomic-inclusion/what-is-the-tampon-tax-and-which-countries-have-axed-it
  117. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13619462.2023.2184804
  118. https://www.etymonline.com/word/tampon
  119. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tampon
  120. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/tampon
  121. https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object-groups/health-hygiene-and-beauty/feminine-hygiene-products
  122. https://www.dw.com/en/virginity-and-menstruation-myths-behind-asias-tampon-taboo/a-50841434
  123. https://www.vice.com/en/article/why-are-tampons-a-taboo-in-indonesia/
  124. https://www.scarleteen.com/read/bodies/sexuality-color-latinx-tampon-taboo
  125. https://www.vice.com/en/article/pm-tampons-virginity-periods-menstruation-hymen/
  126. https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-women-tampons.html
  127. https://islammuslims.quora.com/Can-a-Muslim-teenage-girl-use-tampons-or-menstrual-cups
  128. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9670493/
  129. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037907389800053X
  130. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8454524/
  131. https://www.campaignlive.com/article/100-years-tampon-pad-marketing-brands-struggling-embrace-periods/1710779
  132. https://periodaisle.com/blogs/all/how-ads-have-period-shamed-us-for-decades
  133. https://www.thedrum.com/news/2020/10/12/gory-glory-the-evolution-period-advertising
  134. https://www.vulture.com/article/periods-in-movies-and-tv.html
  135. https://tabooau.co/blogs/blog/depictions-of-menstruation-in-mainstream-media
  136. https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2017/09/170252/period-scenes-film-menstruation-in-movies
  137. https://info.primarycare.hms.harvard.edu/perspectives/articles/fight-period-poverty-and-stigma
  138. https://period.org/
  139. https://thepadproject.org/
  140. https://www.daysforgirls.org/
  141. https://msmagazine.com/2016/04/14/how-canada-finally-axed-its-federal-tampon-tax/
  142. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55502252
  143. https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2022/11/10/tampontax/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.