Can diapers improve agricultural management?

     Ever wondered how diapers can hold and absorb so much liquid?  The simple answer is hydrogels.  Disposable diapers have been on the rise in popularity in recent years because of their ease of use.  Unfortunately with the sudden increase in popularity of diapers,  waste management is a big issue all around the world.  Everyone is trying to find new and innovative ways to decrease the generation of waste.  Because of the short life span of disposable diapers, they end up in a waste field which causes very serious environmental impacts. Consequently, people are switching over to reusable diapers.  While this is, in fact, a positive, the much bigger issue is in developing countries where the majority of disposable diapers are being used.  In many of these developing countries, the used diapers are disposed of in either landfills or open dumpsites.  The mismanagement of solid waste can lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution from the open dumpsites.  These hydrogels after being sanitized might have the possibility to be reused or repurposed for another product.   Current research focuses on the reuse of hydrogels for soil irrigation.  

     A hydrogel is a chemically or physically bonded polymer.  Chemically bonded hydrogels are permanent and chemically cross-linked together.  Physically bonded hydrogels are reversible and are held together by hydrogen bonding from its interactions with water.  The only difference between chemically and physically bonded hydrogel is that physically bonded hydrogels can be separated into individual components.   How much water a hydrogel can hold is the point of equilibrium swelling which is the most important characteristic.  When a hydrogel connects with water, the hydrophobic groups interact with the water molecules. The hydrophobic group tends to repel water, which leads to the swelling of the hydrogel.  As the hydrogel swells, it is absorbing the surrendering water until it reaches its equilibrium swelling point.  Every hydrogel has its own equilibrium swelling point.  Once it reaches this point it will not swell anymore and the additional water will fill in the spaces between the bonds. 

      Traditionally, agricultural methods are based on irrigation methods such as drip and spray and, flood irrigation.  This has some downfalls because not all the water is absorbed by the plants which can lead to runoff water.  In some countries, this poses a bigger threat because of the scarcity of water.  Sandy soils are impacted at a greater extent because they have low water carrying capacity which makes it hard for them to absorb water.  This leads to most of the water being unabsorbed and the plant roots lacking sufficient water and nutrients.  Since hydrogels are very absorptive,  they can be used to absorb some of the excess water so the water does not go to waste. 

     Hydrogels can be used to improve agricultural management.  Many studies are looking into if the hydrogels in diapers can be reused and repurposed after sanitation, but still, maintain the level of equilibrium swelling and have the ability to hold the water for a long period of time. Luckily, they were proven to have a larger equilibrium swelling capacity and a longer swell time.  These two factors can greatly improve water retention in soil and irrigation efficiency.  Because of the basic properties of a hydrogel, they are allowed to slowly release the water back into the soil, this allows improved water efficiency.  This is because the plant’s roots are not drowning in large amounts of water which makes it harder for them to retain all of it.  While the hydrogel is in the soil, it will wrap around the roots and will continue to give the roots the water supply it needs for photosynthesis.  There still is a long way to go on researching this idea, but maybe in the future, we will be able to reuse hydrogels and many other everyday items.  

Citations 

Agaba, H., Orikiriza, L., Obua, J., Kabasa, J., Worbes, M., & Hüttermann, A. (2011, November 17). Hydrogel amendment to sandy soil reduces irrigation frequency and improves the biomass of Agrostis stolonifera. Retrieved November 24, 2020, from https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=8549

Al-Jabari, M., Ghyadah, R., & Alokely, R. (2019, March 20). Recovery of hydrogel from baby diaper wastes and its application for enhancing soil irrigation management. Retrieved November 23, 2020, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479719303901

Ferronato, N., Nova Pinedo, M., & Torretta, V. (2020, June 21). Assessment of Used Baby Diapers Composting in Bolivia. Retrieved November 24, 2020, from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/12/5055

Zekry, M., Abdallah, A., Salim, H., & Nassar, I. (2020, March 07). The Potential of super absorbent polymers from diaper wastes to enhance water retention properties of the soil. Retrieved November 24, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341756185_The_Potential_of_super_absorbent_polymers_from_diaper_wastes_to_enhance_water_retention_properties_of_the_soil

 

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.