devices, because technology is not neutral or inert. This has a direct effect on the next important concept: that bacteria possess the ability to become technological users, and, as users, create unintended consequences for humans with which they share an ecological space. Finally, this techno-bacteriological interface has been poorly anticipated in terms of design and risk, so that resultant injury appears unexpectedly, as a surprise. The indecorous subject of tampons and menstruation made it difficult for many to willingly concede the game-changing scope of this technobiological illness.1
Tampons as Technologies
Tampons were neither regulated nor particularly trusted technologies when they first commercially appeared in the form of Tampax in 1936. They required a good degree of domestication as emergent technologies, accompanied by educational advertising teaching women about the benefits of the technology.2 Because tampons were phallic-like in shape and a perceived threat to the virginal hymen, some educators, nurses, and parents felt convinced to leave well enough alone. They promoted the use of disposable sanitary napkins instead for adolescent girls.3 Yet, by the 1940s, many young women were early adopters, because they recognized how tampons relieved them of the physical encumbrance of elastic belts, long tabs, and uncomfortably thick pads worn between the thighs.4 Advertising, menstrual hygiene education films, and word of mouth shifted many women’s opinions about tampons from dubious to acceptable; under certain circumstances such as dancing, swimming, or working long shifts, many embraced them as a useful tool of physical liberation.5 Still, there was much cloaking, double entendre, and indirect language about how and when to use a tampon. To the uninitiated, the cryptic language of advertising made tampons seem like magic in a box; I have anecdotally heard more than once that a thoughtful but unknowing young boy would gift a girl in first or second grade this special box because she could do all kinds of amazing things with it, like ride horses or bikes, and do gymnastics.
By the 1960s, through skillful advertising campaigns, companies successfully associated bodily freedom and women’s liberation with the use of tampon technologies.6 Once women accepted tampons, they entered into a tacit agreement with the corporation, assuming that this commodity was safe. There were some complaints of abrasions, strings breaking, products leaking, and contact dermatitis related to deodorants and perfumes embedded in tampon materials. Other complaints regarded problems of disposal and clogged plumbing when they were flushed down the toilet. Yet, overall, cotton tampons enjoyed a solid reputation. They may not have worked well for all women, but they could be viewed similar to a bandage: a medical dressing to absorb blood.
Though we often think of tampons as static objects, designers, chemists, and inventors, working on behalf of large corporations, filed many patents to transform the plain old cotton tampon into something they thought would be significantly better and thus gain a larger share of the market. Though Tampax may have been the first cotton tampon to be successfully commercialized in 1936, others with different designs soon followed. Wix, a competitor of Tampax in the 1930s, incorporated a cellophane sheath, which, according to the inventor Frederick Richardson, was “to hold the body of the absorbent material in its proper desired shape, and in part, to enable the plug to be easily inserted into working position.”7 He suggested that deodorants such as phenol, peppermint, or wintergreen could be added easily to the cotton. At the Personal Products Corporation—a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary—George C. Graham developed a patent for a flexible tampon composed of “cotton, rayon, paper, hemp or wool” in 1957.8 Simultaneously, he applied for a patent for a tampon composed of absorptive salts, including sodium carboxyethylcellulose or sodium carboxymethylcellulose.9 He also received a patent in 1960 for a “tow tampon.” This tampon would have longer rather than shorter filaments for better absorption of fluids by creating capillaries. This patent made claim on a particular manufacturing process and design, but imagined a variety of materials to satisfy the end product of a tampon.
Patenting as broadly as possible was common practice, and materials included “Dacron” polymeric polyester, nylon, viscose rayon, vinyl fibers, acrylic fibers, “saran” polymeric vinyl chloride, polyethylene, glass fibers, protein fibers, and silk.10 Polyester emerged as a synthetic fiber in the 1950s, and the reference in the patent to Dacron reflected the proprietary name given to it by DuPont. Also by 1960, scientists at Kimberly-Clark Corporation, the maker of Kotex sanitary napkins, had received patents for tampons composed of 60 percent cotton and 40 percent “crimped viscose rayon staple fibers.”11 The variety of materials indicated that inventors were thinking beyond cotton grown on the farm, to fibers and substances easily created in the lab.
Viscose rayon emerged as a popular addition to tampons, proving to be both absorbent and cheap to procure. Derived from wood cellulose, it is processed with other chemicals, dried, and spun to form fibers. Unlike cotton or silk, which retain their properties and characteristics, chemical processes transform cellulose into a semi-synthetic fiber. Most of the popular brands of tampons—Tampax, Playtex, o.b., Kotex—have incorporated rayon, but because the labeling of ingredients is not mandated, that information is not readily available.12 By 1996, researchers felt that there were only two all-cotton tampons available to test; all the rest contained rayon.13 In part, Tambrands introduced “Tampax Naturals” that same year, calling the product line “the first U.S.-made all-cotton tampon”—despite that same composition of the original Tampax—in response to some women’s desires for a natural tampon. However, rayon continues to be used as a core component of tampons. Even the employees of the Good Shepherd Food-Bank in Maine, on a goodwill tour of the neighboring Tambrands manufacturing plant in 2012, waxed eloquent about the machinery as it produced Tampax Pearl tampons, made out of both cotton and rayon, the fibers “spun into a solid mat.”14
Inventors continued to develop new fibers and materials during the 1960s and 1970s. The scientists Billy Harper, Robert Bashaw, and Bobby Atkins developed sodium polyacrylate for Dow Chemical Company, filing a patent for the chemical in 1966.15 Due to its polymer structure containing sodium ions, sodium polyacrylate absorbs anywhere from 200 to 1,000 times its own weight in water. The material forms into a gel, which in essence holds fluids. In 1978, Russell L. Johnson for the Kimberly-Clark Corporation devised a digital tampon meant to be inserted with a finger. It used a cotton-rayon fiber base, and capitalized on the newly developed “super absorbent fibers,” including polyacrylate, cross-linked polyurethane, or polyester foam.16 Currently, sodium polyacrylate is a common absorbent in disposable baby diapers.17 Of course, bodily fluids from urine to menstrual fluid are not pure water, thus the polyacrylate is not as effective with salts and proteins, so it must be paired with other materials to produce an absorbent tampon or diaper less likely to leak.
By the mid-1970s, the leading tampon manufacturers landed patents for tampons that included some derivative of carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) as one of its absorbent components. CMC, derived from the more familiar plant material of cellulose, when synthesized by a reaction with chloroacetic acid, becomes a viscose thickening agent, shifting from powder to gel when introduced to liquids. It is used as a food additive to stabilize emulsions, such as ice cream, but also to help with gelling texture in toothpaste, detergents, or paints. It is considered nontoxic and hypoallergenic, and by all appearances, it is a dream material with which to work due to its relative stability. International Playtex, Inc., filed a patent for “preparation of water-insoluble carboxymethyl cellulose absorbents” in 1978, the purpose of which was for absorbency in a tampon.18 Kimberly-Clark filed a patent in 1976 for a compressed tampon composed of absorbent fibers, including carboxymethylcellulose.19
By 1974 Procter & Gamble (P&G) already test-marketed its synthetic Rely, composed of a polyester sheath, compressed polyurethane (and later polyester) foam cubes, and carboxymethylcellulose, but continued to hone its own version of a CMC tampon, as evidenced by its patent encompassing many “absorbent devices” filed in 1981.20 Incorporating CLD-2—the trade name for cross-linked CMC manufactured by Buckeye Cellulose Corporation, a subsidiary of P&G—this iteration of the tampon also included Pluronic L-92, a nonionic surfactant manufactured by BASF, helping the fibers to be more hydrophilic, and referred to as “mensesphilic” in the patent.21 The significance of this surfactant would not be discovered until the early 1990s, when researchers found that Pluronic
