Incontinence Wet Wipes

The working window for an incontinence-specific lotion is broadly 5.0–6.5. This range counteracts the alkaline load from urine and faecal enzymes while remaining close enough to the skin's acid mantle not to disrupt it further. Products in the market sit across this band-some at pH 4–5, some at 4.5–6.5, some at 5.5-because the measurement point and the buffer system differ. The more important question than the headline number is whether the lotion is buffered to hold its pH when it meets an alkaline load on the skin. We formulate to a target within 5.0–6.5 and confirm pH at batch release and on stability.

For urine-only per-change cleansing, 45–55 gsm with a wet tensile of ≥6 N/25 mm MD is often workable, because the mechanical demand is lower. Faecal or mixed incontinence places more lateral load on the wipe, and 60–80 gsm with ≥8 N/25 mm MD is the more appropriate starting specification. Heavy or institutional use can move toward 70–80 gsm and ≥10 N/25 mm MD. The wet tensile test should be run on the finished saturated wipe, not the dry substrate, because lotion pickup and soil contact change the behaviour. We confirm the GSM and the wet tensile target against the actual cleansing task before quoting.

It depends on the care protocol, not on the wipe alone. A barrier-support lotion with zinc oxide or dimethicone can simplify a per-change routine where a separate barrier step is not consistently performed, and it can help where skin is already excoriated. A separate barrier cream gives more control over the thickness and the site of application, and it may be preferred where the protocol is already established. The trade-off is that an over-applied barrier lotion can affect pad absorbency. We produce both routes and recommend choosing the one that matches the protocol your caregivers will actually follow, rather than the one that looks better on a specification sheet.

Generally no. Incontinence wipes are specified for wet strength and faecal cleansing, which means the substrate is designed to hold together rather than disperse. A flushable claim requires a different substrate chemistry and dispersibility testing to a recognised standard, and that substrate would not deliver the same wet tensile performance for faecal cleansing. Incontinence wipes should be disposed of in general waste unless the pack carries a specific flushable claim with the corresponding test documentation. The two requirements-faecal-cleansing strength and flushability-pull in opposite directions on substrate design.

For a cleansing wipe without a medical or biocidal claim, the EU route is generally the Cosmetics Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, with a Cosmetic Product Safety Report and CPNP notification. In the US, a cleansing wipe is typically a cosmetic, while a wipe making a medical or drug claim moves to a different classification. If the product is positioned as a medical device-for example, for skin protection in a clinical care setting-the EU Medical Device Regulation route may apply instead, with CE marking. The classification follows the claim and the intended use, not the word "incontinence" on the pack. We review the claim and the destination market before formula lock so the documentation set matches the route[reference:5].

Often yes, with adjustments to the fold and the pickup rate rather than the substrate itself. A 65 gsm spunlace at a pH-buffered, fragrance-free lotion can be packed in an 80-count canister for a bedside station and a 40-count soft pack for home care or retail, provided the fold geometry and the moisture distribution are confirmed for each pack. The canister and the soft pack stress the seal differently, so the film and closure specification should follow the pack type. Carrying one substrate family and one lotion across both channels reduces artwork and specification overhead, but the pack-specific testing still has to be done.