# Tampons

An internal tampon's defining spec is its FDA-rated absorbency in grams, which trades directly against toxic shock syndrome risk, so the right size is the lowest one that controls flow. Insertion method (plastic applicator, cardboard applicator, or digital/no applicator) and core material (rayon-cotton blend versus certified organic cotton) are the other two axes that split the category.

## How it works

A tampon is a compressed cylinder of absorbent fiber, usually a rayon-cotton blend or 100% cotton, that expands against the vaginal wall to absorb menstrual flow, with a withdrawal string sealed into the core for removal. Applicator tampons sit inside a two-tube plunger (plastic or cardboard) that pushes the core in and expands it lengthwise (axially); digital, no-applicator tampons are finger-inserted and expand sideways (radially) instead. The FDA requires every batch to be lab-tested with a synthetic-vagina device and labeled with one of six absorbency bands, because higher absorbency raises toxic shock syndrome risk, so manufacturers and buyers are both pushed toward the minimum absorbency that controls that day's flow.

## How an expert narrows the choice

```mermaid
timeline
  section 1 · Applicator type
    digital_no_applicator : skip Applicator size
    plastic_applicator : ask Applicator size
  section 2 · Absorbency rating
    not_sure_yet : ask First-time vs standard line
  section 3 · Core material
    rayon_cotton_blend : skip Organic certification
```

1. **Applicator type.** Plastic applicator, cardboard applicator, or no applicator?
   Insertion method decides comfort, waste profile, and whether a compact/telescoping size even exists; it is the first fork every tampon line is built around.
   If digital_no_applicator: skip Applicator size.
   If plastic_applicator: ask Applicator size.
   Skip if already known: a query that already names 'applicator-free', 'digital', 'plastic applicator', or 'cardboard applicator'.

2. **Absorbency rating.** Light, regular, super, super-plus, ultra, or not sure?
   This is the FDA-standardized spec the whole category is organized around, and the one the agency explicitly wants buyers to minimize to cut TSS risk.
   If not_sure_yet: ask First-time vs standard line.
   Skip if already known: an earlier answer naming a flow level or absorbency term.

3. **Core material.** Rayon-cotton blend, or 100% organic cotton?
   This decides whether an organic-certification claim is even possible to check, and it is the axis the cotton-versus-rayon TSS debate is fought over.
   If rayon_cotton_blend: skip Organic certification.
   Skip if already known: an earlier answer naming 'organic', 'cotton only', or 'rayon'.

## What to surface

### Absorbency rating

The FDA-standardized absorbency band a tampon is labeled with, measured in grams absorbed under a synthetic-vagina lab test. This is the one spec the FDA requires every box to carry, and it is a direct trade-off against toxic shock syndrome risk: the agency's own labeling rule tells buyers to pick the lowest absorbency that controls their flow, not the highest one available. [1] [2] [8]

Values: light, regular, super, super_plus, ultra, not_sure_yet.
Range: 0 to 18 grams. Light ≤6g; Regular 6-9g; Super 9-12g; Super Plus 12-15g; Ultra 15-18g, per 21 CFR 801.430.
Question to ask: Light, regular, super, super-plus, ultra, or not sure?

Used as: top-level split, filter, sortable. Data: on the listing, backfill cost low. Look for it as: Always on the package front and almost always in the listing title or a dedicated absorbency field.
Title/field keyword match against the five FDA terms; near-universal on US listings since the term is federally mandated. 'not_sure_yet' is a conversational escape value only, never backfilled from a listing, and routes to user_experience_level.
Chart: position on a 0-18g absorbency scale, with TSS-risk shading rising toward the top.

### Applicator type

How the tampon is inserted: a plastic two-tube applicator, a cardboard two-tube applicator, or no applicator (digital, finger-inserted). Plastic applicators have the smoothest, most reliable insertion and are what starter-kit and first-time lines default to; cardboard is the cheaper, lower-plastic-waste option Tampax still sells as its base line; digital tampons generate no applicator waste at all but need practice to insert correctly and expand radially rather than lengthwise. [2] [4] [8]

Values: plastic_applicator, cardboard_applicator, digital_no_applicator.
Question to ask: Plastic applicator, cardboard applicator, or no applicator?

Used as: top-level split, filter. Data: on the listing, backfill cost low. Look for it as: Almost always named in the title ('Plastic Applicator', 'Cardboard Applicator', 'Applicator-Free' / 'Compak').
Title keyword match; default to plastic_applicator when unstated since it is the majority format on mainstream listings.
Chart: position on a plastic-waste axis, digital_no_applicator lowest.

### Core material

What the absorbent core is made of: a rayon-cotton blend, or 100% cotton marketed as organic. Blended rayon-cotton is the majority format and generally cheaper; 100% organic cotton is marketed on being pesticide- and dioxin-free, though a later meta-analysis found the material itself is not independently correlated with TSS risk, so this is a chemical-exposure and certification question more than a safety one. [2] [7]

Values: rayon_cotton_blend, organic_cotton_100, unspecified.
Question to ask: Rayon-cotton blend, or 100% organic cotton?

Used as: top-level split, filter, shown on the card. Data: on the listing, backfill cost low. Look for it as: Usually in the title or bullet points ('100% Organic Cotton', 'Cotton/Rayon Blend'); unmarked listings are almost always the rayon-cotton blend default.
Title keyword match for 'organic' or 'cotton'; default to rayon_cotton_blend when absent.
Chart: position on a chemical-exposure axis, organic_cotton_100 at the low-residue end.

### Applicator size

Whether an applicator tampon ships full-size, or as a shorter compact/telescoping applicator that extends to full length before use. Compact applicators are discreet and pocket-sized but need to be extended correctly before insertion, which first-time users sometimes miss; full-size applicators are simpler but bulkier to carry. [6]

Values: full_size, compact_telescoping.
Question to ask: Full-size applicator, or a compact one?

Used as: filter, shown on the card. Data: on the listing, backfill cost low. Look for it as: Named in the title ('Compact Pearl', 'Compact Radiant') for compact lines; absence implies full_size.
Title keyword match on 'compact'; only meaningful when applicator_type is plastic_applicator — Tampax's cardboard line has no compact/telescoping SKU per its sitemap.

### Scented or unscented

Whether the tampon is scented/deodorant or unscented, the two FDA device sub-categories tampons are regulated under. Scented tampons add fragrance that some buyers find irritating; unscented is the lower-irritation default most dermatology-minded buyers reach for, and it is the category the FDA treats separately in its own device classification. [1] [5]

Values: unscented, scented_deodorant.
Question to ask: Scented, or unscented?

Used as: filter. Data: on the listing, backfill cost low. Look for it as: Stated in the title or bullet points; absence of 'scented' almost always means unscented.
Title keyword match; default to unscented when unstated, since most mainstream lines default that way.

### First-time vs standard line

Whether the product is a standard line, or a first-time/starter line marketed with guidance for new users. Starter kits bundle a guide and sometimes a lower absorbency or slimmer applicator for first-time insertion, which matters for teen or first-period buyers more than the absorbency rating alone. [4]

Values: standard, first_time_starter_kit.
Question to ask: A standard pack, or a first-time starter kit?

Used as: filter. Data: on the listing, backfill cost low. Look for it as: Named explicitly in the title ('Starter Kit') for that SKU; all other listings are standard.
Title keyword match on 'starter' or 'first tampon'.

### Pack configuration

Whether the box holds a single absorbency, or a duo/trio mix of two or three absorbencies in one pack. Mixed duo/trio packs let a buyer match absorbency to flow across a single period without buying two boxes, and are what starter and first-period buyers are steered toward; single-absorbency packs are the default once a buyer has settled on a size. [4]

Values: single_absorbency_pack, mixed_absorbency_multipack.
Question to ask: One absorbency per box, or a mixed duo/trio pack?

Used as: filter. Data: on the listing, backfill cost low. Look for it as: Named in the title ('Duo Pack', 'Trio Pack'); absence means single_absorbency_pack.
Title keyword match on 'duo' or 'trio'.

### Applicator plastic safety

Whether a plastic applicator is marketed as BPA-free, a claim about the applicator's own plastic, separate from the core-fiber chemical checks in chemical_safety_certification. BPA is a hormone-disrupting plastic additive buyers scrutinize in anything inserted into the body; a stated BPA-free claim on the applicator itself is a headline differentiator some brands lead with, separate from core-fiber testing like OEKO-TEX. [10]

Values: bpa_free_claim, none_stated.
Question to ask: Does the plastic applicator state BPA-free?

Used as: filter, shown on the card. Data: on the listing, backfill cost medium. Look for it as: Occasionally in the title for plastic-applicator lines ('BPA-Free Applicator'); otherwise unstated.
Title keyword match on 'BPA-Free'; only meaningful when applicator_type is plastic_applicator, since cardboard and digital have no applicator plastic to certify. Default to none_stated when absent.

### Individual wrap material

What each tampon is individually wrapped in before the box: plastic film, paper/cellulose film, or sold unwrapped in bulk. Plastic wrappers are the most common and most waterproof for bag-and-purse carrying, but are also the single-use plastic buyers trying to cut waste look to replace first; paper-wrapped and unwrapped-bulk options trade some moisture protection for less plastic. [2]

Values: plastic_wrapped, paper_wrapped, unwrapped_bulk.
Question to ask: Individually wrapped in plastic, paper, or not wrapped?

Used as: filter, shown on the card. Data: on the listing, backfill cost medium. Look for it as: Occasionally stated in bullet points for eco-marketed lines ('paper-wrapped'); otherwise assume plastic_wrapped.
Default to plastic_wrapped for mainstream brands; paper_wrapped is a point most eco brands lead with in the title.

### Disposal guidance

Whether the brand states bin-only disposal, or markets the product as flushable or home-compostable. Most applicators and even cotton cores are not sewer- or septic-safe despite being flushed in practice; flushed plastic applicators are a documented source of beach litter, so a stated flushable or compostable claim (rare) is a real differentiator from the bin-only default. [2]

Values: bin_disposal_only, biodegradable_compostable_claim.
Question to ask: Does it say bin-only, or biodegradable/compostable?

Used as: filter, shown on the card. Data: needs research, backfill cost medium. Look for it as: Stated only on eco-marketed brand pages; default to bin_disposal_only when unstated.
Default to bin_disposal_only; flag biodegradable_compostable_claim only when the brand page states it explicitly.

### Organic certification

Whether an organic-cotton claim is backed by a third-party textile standard: GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard), OCS (Organic Content Standard), or none. An uncertified 'organic' claim on packaging is not independently verified; GOTS and OCS are the two textile bodies that audit organic fiber content and processing, so the certification (not the word 'organic' alone) is what tells a buyer the claim was checked. [7] [9]

Values: gots_certified, ocs_certified, other_certified, uncertified_organic_claim, not_applicable.
Question to ask: Does the organic-cotton claim carry a GOTS or OCS certification?

Used as: filter, shown on the card. Data: needs research, backfill cost medium. Look for it as: Rarely a dedicated retail field; look for a GOTS or OCS logo/mention in the listing images or bullet points.
Requires checking the brand's own page for a certification logo; most organic-cotton listings do not state it plainly enough to backfill from title alone.

### Chemical safety certification

Whether the tampon carries a third-party chemical-safety certification such as OEKO-TEX Standard 100, independent of the organic-cotton question. OEKO-TEX Standard 100 tests the finished product against over 1,000 regulated and harmful substances with stricter limits the closer it sits to skin, so it is a chemical-safety check that applies to conventional blended tampons too, not just organic ones. [5] [11]

Values: oeko_tex_standard_100, other_certified, none_stated.
Question to ask: Is it OEKO-TEX Standard 100 certified?

Used as: filter, shown on the card. Data: needs research, backfill cost medium. Look for it as: Stated on the brand's own product page, rarely in the retail listing itself.
Check brand page for the OEKO-TEX logo or text; default to none_stated when absent rather than assuming certification.

### Bleaching process

How the absorbent fiber is bleached: elemental chlorine-free (ECF), totally chlorine-free (TCF/unbleached), or unstated. Chlorine-gas bleaching can leave trace dioxin, a carcinogen the EPA says has no acceptable exposure level; after 1990s Congressional hearings, mainstream brands switched to ECF or TCF processing, so this is the chemical-residue question organic and conventional buyers both ask. [2] [8]

Values: elemental_chlorine_free, totally_chlorine_free, unspecified.
Question to ask: Does the brand state chlorine-free bleaching?

Used as: filter, shown on the card. Data: needs research, backfill cost medium. Look for it as: Rarely in the retail listing; check the brand's own ingredient or FAQ page for 'chlorine-free' language.
Most mainstream US brands are ECF by default post-1990s but rarely print it; organic brands print 'chlorine-free' explicitly.

### Withdrawal string material

What the removal string/cord is made of and coated with: a cotton (often wax-coated) cord, or a synthetic/blended cord. A wax-coated cotton cord resists wicking moisture back out and is what plastic-free brands point to as their one remaining non-cotton input to disclose; buyers avoiding synthetic fibers entirely check this separately from the core material. [8] [2]

Values: cotton_wax_coated, synthetic_or_blended, unspecified.
Question to ask: Is the string cotton, or a synthetic blend?

Used as: shown on the card. Data: needs research, backfill cost high. Look for it as: Essentially never in the retail listing; only on brand ingredient pages.
Default to unspecified unless the brand's own page states it; low value for backfill effort relative to the other facets.

## What you give up

- The FDA's own labeling rule exists because higher-absorbency tampons carry more TSS risk, so the standard advice is to pick the lowest absorbency band that controls that day's flow rather than defaulting to super or ultra for insurance. [1] [3] Board branch: "Lower absorbency, lower TSS-risk margin".
- Plastic applicators insert most reliably and are what starter lines default to, but cardboard applicators and digital (no-applicator) tampons generate far less plastic waste, at some cost to ease of first-time insertion. [2] [8] Board branch: "Less plastic waste, more insertion practice needed".

## Words you will meet

- **Toxic shock syndrome (TSS)**. A rare but serious bacterial illness linked to high-absorbency tampons left in too long; the whole absorbency-labeling system exists to reduce this risk.
- **Rayon**. A manufactured cellulose fiber, usually blended with cotton, that makes up most mainstream tampon cores.
- **GOTS**. Global Organic Textile Standard, a third-party body that certifies organic fiber content and processing across a product's supply chain.
- **OCS**. Organic Content Standard, another third-party certification for verified organic fiber content, distinct from GOTS.
- **OEKO-TEX Standard 100**. An independent certification testing a finished textile product against over 1,000 regulated and harmful substances, with stricter limits the closer it sits to skin.
- **Elemental chlorine-free (ECF)**. A bleaching process using chlorine dioxide instead of chlorine gas, which produces far less dioxin byproduct.
- **Totally chlorine-free (TCF)**. A bleaching process using no chlorine compounds at all, usually peroxide-bleached or unbleached fiber, producing no dioxin byproduct.
- **Dioxin**. A carcinogenic byproduct of chlorine-gas bleaching that the EPA says has no safe exposure level; it is why brands moved to chlorine-free bleaching.
- **Digital tampon**. A tampon with no applicator, inserted with a finger; it expands sideways (radially) rather than lengthwise.
- **Withdrawal string**. The cord sealed into the tampon's core used to remove it; usually cotton, sometimes wax-coated to resist moisture wicking.
- **Telescoping applicator**. A compact applicator built to extend/slide out to full length before use, used to make the unused product more pocket-sized.
- **BPA (Bisphenol A)**. A hormone-disrupting chemical used in some plastics; a BPA-free label on an applicator means that additive was avoided in its manufacture.

## Where we made a call

- Tampon core material (rayon vs. cotton) is not independently correlated with TSS risk; absorbency level is the stronger factor. (confidence medium). Sources disagree. Tierno's early-1980s comparisons found rayon-containing tampons created more favorable TSS growth conditions than all-cotton ones; a later meta-analysis found no direct material correlation and pointed to fluid oxygen/CO2 content instead. [3]

## References

1. [21 CFR 801.430 — User labeling for menstrual tampons](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2023-title21-vol8/xml/CFR-2023-title21-vol8-sec801-430.xml) (regulator). Supports: Absorbency gram ranges and terms: ≤6 light, 6-9 regular, 9-12 super, 12-15 super plus, 15-18 ultra, >18 no term; TSS incidence estimated at 1 to 17 per 100,000 menstruating women/girls per year; Labeling must advise minimum absorbency needed and alternating with pads to reduce TSS risk.
2. [Tampon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampon) (primer). Supports: Majority of tampons made of rayon/cotton blend; organic cotton marketed separately; Two insertion categories: digital (finger-inserted, expands radially) and applicator (plastic or cardboard, expands axially); FDA absorbency table reproduced, matching fda_801_430; Dioxin from chlorine-gas bleaching led brands to switch to elemental or totally chlorine-free processing; Plastic applicators are a documented source of beach litter.
3. [Toxic shock syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_shock_syndrome) (primer). Supports: Recommended tampon change interval of 4 to 8 hours to reduce TSS risk; TSS incidence 'one to 17 of every 100,000' menstruating females per year, matching fda_801_430; Later meta-analysis found tampon material composition not directly correlated with TSS incidence, contradicting earlier Tierno claims.
4. [Tampax sitemap (product line structure)](https://tampax.com/sitemap.xml) (spec sheet). Supports: Product lines: cardboard-applicator (Original), Pearl/Radiant plastic-applicator, Compact Pearl/Compact Radiant telescoping-applicator, Starter Kit, duo/trio multi-absorbency packs.
5. [Tampax Pearl Regular product page](https://tampax.com/en-us/all-products/pearl/regular-tampons/) (spec sheet). Supports: Five absorbency levels; up to eight hours wear; made without perfume; OEKO-TEX Standard 100 certified, tested against up to 1,000 harmful substances; Materials meet FDA Medical Device biocompatibility criteria.
6. [Tampax Compact Pearl Regular product page](https://tampax.com/en-us/all-products/compact-pearl/regular-tampons/) (spec sheet). Supports: Compact applicator extends to a full-size applicator before use; Guidance to go up an absorbency if leaking, down if uncomfortable to remove.
7. [LOLA (mylola.com) organic tampon product info](https://mylola.com) (spec sheet). Supports: 100% GOTS certified organic cotton tampons sold with a plastic compact applicator; Four absorbency sizes: light, regular, super, super plus; Marketed as made without toxins or dyes.
8. [Cora Applicator-Free Tampons product page](https://cora.com/products/applicator-free-tampons) (spec sheet). Supports: 100% organic cotton, made without pesticides, dioxins, fragrance, or chlorine; Withdrawal string is organic cotton with a paraffin water-repellent wax coating; Four absorbency sizes matching the FDA gram ranges exactly (light <6g, regular 6-9g, super 9-12g, super plus 12-15g); Tapered tip designed for applicator-free insertion.
9. [GOTS — Global Organic Textile Standard overview](https://global-standards.org/our-standards/gots) (standards body). Supports: GOTS certifies organic-textile processing across the full supply chain, including chemical inputs and wastewater treatment.
10. [9 Best Tampons, According to Reviewers](https://nymag.com/strategist/article/best-tampons.html) (specialist review). Supports: Veeda 100% Natural Cotton Compact tampons marketed headline as 'BPA-Free Applicator'; Reviewers note Veeda's plastic applicator is described by the brand as plant-based.
11. [OEKO-TEX Standard 100 overview](https://www.oeko-tex.com/en/our-standards/standard-100-by-oeko-tex) (standards body). Supports: Standard 100 tests products against over 1,000 harmful substances; Tiered by skin-contact intensity, applying explicitly to direct skin-contact products.