Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
26 April 2023 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Leonie Bolleurs
reusable sanitary pads
A team of researchers from the UFS is part of a project to invent a reusable sanitary pad that is safe, hygienic, comfortable, easy to use, and friendly to the environment. From left are: Prof Katinka de Wet, Dr Marietjie Schutte-Smith, Prof Deon Visser, and Prof Lizette Erasmus.

A new reusable sanitary pad (RSP) will bring relief to many women during their menstrual cycle.

Dr Marietjie Schutte-Smith, Senior Lecturer in the University of the Free State (UFS) Department of Chemistry, together with Prof Deon Visser, Head of the Department of Chemistry, and Prof Lizette Erasmus, Associate Professor in the same department, are leading a diverse team that decided 18 months ago to do something about the challenge of not having access to conventional sanitary ware and water due to poverty and infrastructure challenges – a challenge many young women in South Africa face every month.

The team included Prof Katinka de Wet, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology, in this process in an effort to gain a better understanding of the current perceptions, experiences, and preferences of those who will ultimately use these sanitary products. 

“We wanted to do research that has a direct and tangible impact on our immediate society,” says Prof Erasmus. 

New technology

The research team turned their focus to reusable sanitary pads (RSPs), specifically the invention of a product that can be cleaned without being exposed to direct sunlight. 

Dr Schutte-Smith explains that most RSPs must be exposed to direct sunlight to dry and prevent bacterial growth. “Exposing RSPs to sunlight is challenging for users residing in densely populated areas, besides the fact that many people find the public display of sanitary products embarrassing.”

She believes a product that can be washed and left indoors to dry, one that has antibacterial and antimicrobial properties under normal light conditions, and with durable superabsorbent inner layers, could alleviate some of these challenges.

The team then started working on technology including nanoparticles (NPs) that affix to textiles and will kill germs and fungi when exposed to normal light. 

Prof Erasmus says, “Attaching NPs to materials is not a new concept, however, the use of nanoparticles that are activated by normal light conditions is new… Also, we have synthesised several absorbent materials using natural fibres and biopolymers as the main constituents. This is an ongoing process to enhance their absorbent properties and durability so that they can be included in our product.”
We wanted to do research that has a direct and tangible impact on our immediate society. – Prof Lizette Erasmus

She adds that when the RSPs are eventually discarded (after four to five years) they will break down in the environment and not contribute further to the plastic waste problem the world is facing. Most disposable sanitary pads (DSPs) are not environmentally friendly and take 500 to 800 years to decompose. 

Dr Schutte-Smith goes on to explain that the sanitary ware will be manufactured by sewing different layers together. “The outer lower layer will consist of a hydrophobic (fluid-repellent) layer to prevent leaking, and the inner layer will consist of the synthesised and biodegradable superabsorbent polymer (SAP).”

The product will be mixed into cotton and will be removable (for better cleaning). “It will also contain NPs that use natural indoor light to disinfect. The top layer also contains our nanotechnology and will relay fluids to the absorbent inner layer.”

Social implications

Besides the important work being done by chemists to incorporate technology that will ensure the product makes sense scientifically, it is also important that the experiences, perceptions, and ideas of end users are kept in mind. 

Prof De Wet says social scientists were included in the design and development of this product to ensure that the actual needs of the end users are taken into consideration. The idea is to collaborate with school learners and university students to get their feedback on the development and eventual use of these newly developed RSPs.

“The aim, therefore, is to sensitise menstruating individuals as to the possible personal advantages of using reusable sanitary pads, including that it is less expensive in the long run, thus eliminating the problem of access to quality and reliable sanitary ware. There could even be some potential health advantages to using such products, as current disposable products contain phthalates that have been shown to have adverse health effects on individuals,” she states.

Prof De Wet also points out the environmental benefits of using reusable sanitary products, and the importance of sensitising young people to the environmental costs of single-use plastic consumption, of which sanitary ware is a major contributor. “Environmental consciousness is part of the social side of the project, given the pressures globally on the human-induced impact on our planet, and its devastating consequences,” she says. “We want the science (chemistry) to have a real social impact in people’s lives individually, socially, and environmentally.”

Future steps

According to Prof Visser, the team already has a prototype in place, which now needs to be perfected through inputs from end users. They hope to have an industry partner within the next six months that will help to get this product on the market.  

The team of chemists worked hard to develop a product that will have the potential to change many lives for the better, allowing young girls and women to thrive in life. 

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept