NULATEX

Powder
Testing
Quality Control Department

Foo He Xuan
2016

Objective
To determine the effect of different composition dusting powder used on the condom.

Introduction
Latex condoms have evolved over the years, but starch has remained at the
forefront. Manufacturers first tried corn starch as a glove lubricant in 1947 because it
was edible, absorbent and did not irritate sensitive skin. By 1975, modified starch had
replaced talcum power in most latex gloves, making them easier to put on and
remove. Twenty years ago, it was very common to find talcum coating condoms.
People will assume that the powder on their condoms is talc or talcum powder but that
is no longer the case. In fact ,a lawsuit found that talc is dangerous for womens
health, that putting it on condoms can lead to as serious diseases as ovarian cancer.
Nowadays, acceptable powders include starch and calcium carbonate.
The essential steps in the production of latex condoms are follow: the production of
the rough condom through vulcanization, then the silicone treatment of the rough
condom followed by the powdering of the condom surface, and finally the lubricant
coating of the condoms surface. The silicone treatment of rough condom consist of
aqueous silicone emulsion. When rough condoms are simply powdered, they are
called dry condoms. These are currently sold in small amount.
Oftentimes, condoms have a starchy, white powder on them. This is usually just corn
starch. Corn starch is a natural material taken from corn kernels and used in all sorts
of things. If a condom doesnt have lubrication, it can be difficult to unroll, or even
stick together and tear when attempt to unroll it. The corn starch prevents this.
Sometimes that corn starch is mixed with other things. Usually these are
preservatives antioxidants or silica (silicon dioxide) to make the condom last longer
and prevent the latex or other materials from breaking down when compressed.

Material and equipment

1. 250pcs of wet condoms

2. 100g Magnesium Carbonate(MgCO3)
3. 200g Absorbo
4. 200g Keoflo
5. 50ml Silicone emulsion
6. Water
7. Big bucket
8. Thermometer
9. Hair dryer
10. Test tube and Beaker
11. Conical flask
12. Culture dish
13. Oven
14. Tray

Procedure
1. Master batch were prepared as table 1.
2. Weight of each material used are recorded.
3. TSC testing was conducted on each master batch prepared. Result were
recorded.
4. Mixing batch for each master batch were prepared according to the table 2.
5. The condom sample were be taken directly from collecting drum.50 pcs of
condom was prepared for each master batch.
6. Wet condoms were put into a big beaker before the mixing batch was poured
into it. The mixture were been stirred for 2 minutes or more to ensure
condoms were well mixed with the powder solution.
7. Condoms were removed from the beaker for drying.
8. The condoms were dried by using hair dryer.
9. All condoms condition were observed and recorded.
10. Condom sample were be rolled and sent for foiling .Quantity of lubricant and
flavour scent in used were recorded.
11. The sample is split into 2 groups and placed at below condition:
a) Room temperature
b) 70C oven for 7 days
12. During testing, room temperature was monitored and recorded.
13. Two samples from group (a) were be taken to measure the lubricant migration.
Result was recorded. Observation were made for any visual defects. This
testing was repeated every 3 days and result is recorded.
14. 20 pcs of sample were removed from the oven after 7 days and it was leave to
cool down for 24 hours before the measure of lubricant migration and visual
checking.
15. The steps above were repeated for other master batch.

Table 1

MASTER BATCH
MgCO3
Absorbo
Keoflo
Water
Total(g)

1
5%
9%
86%
400

Table 2
Mixing batch
Master batch powder
Silicone emulsion
Water

Quantity lubricant
Flavour

600mg
Grape

Quantity
320g
7.5ml
2kg

Table 3

Fig 1: Master batch with different composition

Fig 2: Sample master batch after drying

2
5%
9%
86%
400

3
14%
86%
400

4
14%
86%
400

Fig 3: Experimental sample immersed inside Silicone emulsion

Fig 4: Experimental sample after powdering

Fig 5: Experimental sample after rolled

Fig 6: Completed foiled experimental sample

Result
Table 4(a): TSC Testing (%)

Wt. of empty dish( a ),g

Wt. of latex( b ),g
Wt. of dish + batch mixture( c ),g
TSC=(c-a)/b*100

Master Batch
1
38.00
2.46
38.36
14.63

Table 4(b) :Mass of Material used(gram)

Master Batch
1
MgCO3
20
Absorbo
36
Keoflo
0
Water
344
Total(g)
400
Table 4(c): Observation(After Drying)
Master Batch
1
2
3
4

Table 4(d): Temperature Record

Da
y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Temperature(C)
26.0
26.5
26.0
26.0
26.5
27.2
25.3
26.0
27.4
26.5

Da
y
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Temperature(C)
26.3
27.1
25.8
26.5
27.3
27.0
26.4
26.5
27.0
25.9

Master Batch
2
51.35
2.42
51.72
15.29

2
20
0
36
344
400

Master Batch
3
55.10
2.41
55.47
15.35

3
0
56
0
344
400

Observation
Sticky Rim-1
Sticky Rim-1
Sticky Body-1
Tearing-1

Master Batch
4
51.28
2.41
51.62
14.11

4
0
0
56
344
400

Group (a): Room Temperature

Da
y
0
3
6
9
12
15
17
23
24

Batch 1
Sample 1
Sample 2
Migration(mm Observatio
Migration(mm Observatio
)
n
)
n
0
0
78
78
123
60
90
115
120
75
125
119
140
120
139
140
143
150
Table 5(a): Average migration of Master Batch 1

Average migration
(mm)
0.00
78.00
91.50
102.50
97.50
122.00
130.00
139.50
146.50

Batch 1
160
140
120
100

Migration(mm)

80
60
40
20
0

10

15

Days

Graph 1(a): Lubricant migration of powder Master Batch 1 for 24 days

20

25

30

Batch 2

Day
0
3
6
9
12
15
17
22
24

Sample 1
Migration(mm Observatio
)
n
0
115
117
105
109
90
85
125
115
-

Sample 2
Migration(mm Observatio
)
n
0
60
115
75
119
120
137
140
130
-

Average migration
(mm)
0.00
87.50
116.00
90.00
114.00
105.00
111.00
132.50
122.50

Table 5(b): Average migration of Master Batch 2

Batch 2
14
12
10
8

Migration(mm)

6
4
2
0

10

15

Days

Graph 1(b): Lubricant migration of powder Master Batch 2 for 24 days

20

25

30

Batch 3

Day
0
3
6
9
12
15
17
22
24

Sample 1
Migration(mm Observatio
)
n
0
170
82
105
130
125
SK(B)
120
145
105
SK(R)

Sample 2
Migration(mm Observatio
)
n
0
195
124
110
95
100
85
SK(B)
160
135
TEARING

Average migration
(mm)
0
182.50
103.00
107.50
112.50
112.50
102.50
152.50
120.00

Table 5(c): Average migration of Master Batch 3

Batch 3
20
18
16
14
12

Migration(mm)

10
8
6
4
2
0

10

15

Days

Graph 1(c): Lubricant migration of powder Master Batch 3 for 24 days

20

25

30

Batch 4

Day
0
3
6
9
12
15
17
22
24

Sample 1
Sample 2
Observatio
Observatio
Migration(mm)
n
Migration(mm)
n
0
0
155
82
120
160
50
SK(B)
102
SK(B)
183
71
SK(R)
85
94
SK(B)
103
54
120
145
SK(B)
197
170
Table 5(d): Average migration of Master Batch 4

Average migration
(mm)
0
118.50
140.00
76.00
127.00
89.50
78.50
132.50
183.50

Batch 4
20
18
16
14
12

Migration(mm)

10
8
6
4
2
0

10

15

Days

Graph 1(d): Lubricant migration of powder Master Batch 4 for 24 days

20

25

30

Comparison of Master Batch

200
180
160
140
120
Migration(mm)

100
80
60
40
20
0

10

15

20

Days
Batch 1

Batch 2

Batch 3

Batch 4

Graph 1(e): Comparison of lubricant migration of powder master batch for 24 days

Fig 7(a): Lubricant migration of sample at Day 3.

25

30

Fig 7(b): Lubricant migration of sample at Day 6

Group (b): 70C oven for 7 days

No.sampl
e

Batch1

Batch 2

Batch 3

Batch 4

Migration(mm
)

Observation

Migration(mm
)

Observation

Migration(mm)

Observation

Migration(mm)

Observation

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

12
12.3
12.5
13.1
10.3
12.4
12.3
11.5
13
12.5
14
12.8

12
12
13.1
10.1
10.1
9.4
9.5
11.5
9.7
9.4
13
8.7

6.5
8.4
10.5
6.5
7
10.5
9
7.5
10.5
10.4
10.5
6

9
9
10
9.5
12
11
10.2
12
11.5
9
11
13

SK(B)
SK(B)
SK(B)
SK(B)
-

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Average
migration
(mm)

11.5
10.6
10.4
11
11.9
12.5
12
13.5
12.105

10.2
13.9
8.5
9
10.5
14
11.7
13
10.965

7.5
11
9.5
8.3
6.4
10.8
8.9
7.3
8.65

SK(B)
SK(B),SK(R
)
SK(B)
-

10.5
11.5
10
11
9.5
13
12
11
10.785

SK(B)
SK(B)
-

Table 6: Average lubricant migration of powder master batch after 7 days ageing

Lubricant Migration after 7 days

121.05
109.65

107.85
86.5

Average Migration(mm)

Batch 1

Batch 2

Batch 3

Batch 4

Master Batch

Graph 2: Average lubricant migration of powder master batch after 7 days ageing in oven

Discussion
This experiment showed effect of different type of dusting powder in the
condom powdering. This experiment was last for 24 days. Experimental samples
which were completely powdered has been sorted into two groups and been put in
different conditions which were in room temperature and in 70 C oven for 7days.
Before doing the powdering experiment, TSC testing was been carried out on
each master batch of powder to find out their total solid content (%).According to
Table 4(a), the results showed that powder batch 3 recorded the highest total solid
content which was 15.35%.In contrast, powder batch 4 recorded the lowest solid
content which was 14.11%.The ideal total solid content was among 13%
-14%.Therefore, Master Batch 1 (14.63%) and Master Batch 4 (14.11%) showed
better TSC results compared to Master Batch 2 (15.29%) and Master Batch 3
(15.35%).
During the experiment, daily room temperature was been recorded. It was to
find out the effect of room temperature on the lubricant migration of condom .From
the results obtained, it showed that there was no significant effect of room
temperature on the migration of lubricant. This might due to the small temperature
range that only between 25.8 C and 27.2 C. Therefore, chemical reaction effect on
lubricant migration beyond this temperature was not significant .There were sticky

defect found during air drying which were 1 piece defect condom for sample batch 3
and 3 pieces of defect condom for sample batch 4.Sample batch 4 showed the most
number of defect comdom.
This experiment was been carried out for 24 days for sample group (a). Result
was been taken every 3 days. Based on the result in Graph 1(a), the lubricant
migration showed a steady increasing trend except on day 12th.Generally, lubricant
migration was directly proportional to the time. It means the longer the time the
samples kept, the greater the lubricant migration showed. Therefore, it could be said
that sample Master Batch 1 was almost a succeed sample. However, Master Batch 2, 3
and 4 showed biased results. From the Graph 1(b), 1(c), and 1(d), the results showed
was biased from the theoretical result. All these graphs show irregular trend pattern
which their migration were not directly proportional to the time. This condition might
due to inappropriate powdering process. Insufficient mixing time caused the powder
not adhere on and distribute equally on the condom surface.
In Graph 1(e), it showed the comparison of lubricant migration of Master
Batch 1, 2, 3 and 4.From this graph, it was clearly seen that sample Master batch 4
obtained greatest and shortest lubricant migration which was 183.50mm and
76mm.There was only sample Master Batch 1 showed a stable and smooth increased
trend of migration (except day 12th) compared to the other 3 batch. Besides that,
according to the observation when unrolled the condom, sample Master Batch 4
showed the most number of sticky conditions .There were 5 pieces of samples showed
sticky condition. For Master Batch 3, it recorded 3 sticky samples and 1 tearing
sample. While there was no visual defects found in Maser Batch 1 and 2.
Sample group (b) was put below 70 C in oven for 7 days. These samples were
been taken out after 7 days and leave to cool down for 24 hours. Lubricant migration
of 20 pieces of condom from each batch were measured and recorded. The data was
plotted as Graph 2.Average lubricant migration of each batch was obtained and
calculated from 20 pieces of condom sample. According to the Graph 2, the greatest
average lubricant migration was recorded by Master Batch 1 which was 121.05mm
while the shortest migration was recorded by Master Batch 3 which was 86.5mm.
This might because there were technical error happen during the lubricant oil adding
process. During adding process, the lubricant oil was not injected properly into the

condom, there are some oil spilt out. This affect the migration result.While based on
the observation when unrolled sample Master Batch 4, it showed that there were 6
pieces of sticky body condom. Also, Master Batch 3 showed 3 pieces of defect
sample. During unrolled process, certain samples from batch 3 and batch 4 were
found difficult to be unrolled. This might due to the properties of powder Absorbo and
Keoflo that were subsided easily under water .When these powders were subsided and
not been continuous stirred, it will affect the powdering process as there was no
enough powder attach to the condom. In addition, there was no visual defect found in
Master Batch 1 and 2.
Compared results of group (a) and group (b), it showed that the samples which
put under room temperature recorded greater lubricant migration than samples that
put in oven for 7days.This was because the high temperature in oven caused the
chemical reaction happen inside latex and made it become sticky . Meanwhile, high
temperature also speed up the latex ageing process.
In this experiment, results showed that Absorbo was a better powder compared
to Keoflo. This was because batch 3 which used only Absorbo powder obtained less
sticky sample than in batch 4 which used only Keoflo powder in both experiment
conditions (a and b). However, Magnesium Carbonate (MgCO3) which the inorganic
salt that combines with the Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) also played important role in
prevent the condoms from sticking to each other. The batch which contained
Magnesium Carbonate (batch 1 and 2) showed no sticky condition. Master Batch 1
also showed the best performance which it had greatest lubricant migration and no
visual defect. In short, it could be said that powder Absorbo was better than powder
Keoflo. Also, and it was better to add powder Magnesium Carbonate compared to
used Absorbo or Keoflo merely.

Conclusion
In conclusion, powder Master Batch 1 is the best and the most effective powder
compound to be used in condom powdering. It showed the most stable increase trend
and no visual defect in room temperature condition. Besides that, it showed highest
lubricant migration and no visual defect after 7 days ageing. Also, it can be unrolled
easily. The rank sequence of powder compound will be the first for Master Batch 1,

second Master Batch 2,and then both Master Batch 3 and 4.From this experiment,
results showed that the lubricant migration is affected by type of dusting powder and
time. However, if the powder is not effective, lubricant migration result will be very
bad, doesnt matter how long time the time the condom put. This is because there are
high probability exist visual defect like sticky body happen on the condom. In short,It
is recommended to use Master Batch 1 which is mixture of Magnesium Carbonate
and Absorbo instead of others mixture compound.