Ultraviolet radiation transmission of soft disposable contact lenses and ISO 18369: claims and compliance

Jin, Irene; Tao, Fiona; Ho, Lily; Swarbrick, Helen A.; Dain, Stephen J.

doi:10.1080/08164622.2021.1878826

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The other manufacturers (class 2 test lenses) specify the average UV-A and UV-B transmittance characteristics of the lenses in the package insert (usually without back vertex power) but do not state the UV protection class. This is consistent with the findings of Jin et al 52 that some manufacturers in their study seemed to hide that only a class 2 claim could be made. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends class 2 contact lenses for general use (better than no UV protection) and class 1 contact lenses for environments with high UV exposure such as mountains or beaches.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…The results show that all claims of the manufacturers for class 1 or class 2 lenses were valid. 52 We can confirm this with regard to the results of the present study, which show that all measured contact lenses that claim to have a UV protection meet the international standards (at least UV protection class 2). The materials senofilcon A, narafilcon A, and senofilcon C further meet UV protection class 1.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…As mentioned in Introduction, the indication of UV protection of UV-absorbing contact lenses is often inconclusive and can be confusing to eye care practitioners and the public. Jin et al 52 examined the UV radiation transmittance of soft disposable contact lenses and manufacturers' claims regarding their UV protection classification. The results show that all claims of the manufacturers for class 1 or class 2 lenses were valid 52 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jin et al 52 examined the UV radiation transmittance of soft disposable contact lenses and manufacturers' claims regarding their UV protection classification. The results show that all claims of the manufacturers for class 1 or class 2 lenses were valid 52 . We can confirm this with regard to the results of the present study, which show that all measured contact lenses that claim to have a UV protection meet the international standards (at least UV protection class 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ultraviolet and Visible Transmittance of Soft Contact Lenses with and without Ultraviolet Blockers

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SIGNIFICANCE: Ultraviolet (UV) and visible light transmittance of soft contact lenses (SCLs) was measured. A significant difference in UV transmittance has been found between SCLs with a positive and negative back vertex power (BVP). It can be shown that thicker SCLs absorb more UV radiation. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine UV and visible light transmittance of different SCLs with and without UV protection filters. METHODS: Twenty-one lens brands were investigated in the BVP range of −12.00 to +6.00 D. Three SCLs were measured per BVP 25 times. Three hundred thirty-nine SCLs with UV filter (stenfilcon A, somofilcon A, narafilcon A, senofilcon A, senofilcon C, etafilcon A, nesofilcon A) and 489 SCLs without UV filter (delefilcon A, lotrafilcon A, lotrafilcon B, comfilcon A, balafilcon A, samfilcon A, asmofilcon A, nelfilcon A, omafilcon A, hilafilcon B, ocufilcon D, hioxifilcon A, omafilcon B) have been examined. The measurement setup was created according to ISO 18369-3.RESULTS: All UV-absorbing labeled test SCLs meet UV protection class 2. senofilcon A, senofilcon C, and narafilcon A meet the higher UV protection class 1 level. A statistically significant difference in UV transmittance (280 to 380 nm) has been found between SCLs with a positive BVP (+1.00 to +6.00 D) and SCLs with a negative BVP (−1.00 to −12.00 D), both without ( P = .04) and with UV filters ( P = .02).CONCLUSIONS: With the ISO-conforming, diopter-independent measurement setup, the UV-absorbing test contact lenses that meet the current international standards, regardless of their BVP, were identified. Lenses with increased center thickness absorb more UV radiation. Further studies may use a modified measurement setup with a larger aperture than 10 mm. It would also be worthwhile to examine the UV absorption of the contact lens over the complete corneal area and limbal area because UV radiation may damage inner ocular tissues like the crystalline lens as well as limbal stem cells.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ultraviolet and Visible Transmittance of Soft Contact Lenses with and without Ultraviolet Blockers

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The amount of UV absorbed or transmitted by contact lenses varies markedly between brands depending on manufacturer and lens material. It can even vary within the same manufacturer [5,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ATR-FTIR, SAXS and UV-Vis Studies of Silicone Hydrogel and Bio-Hydrogel Soft Contact Lenses

Bayarı

Göcen²,

Bacıoğlu³

et al. 2022

AJACR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of contact lens materials on the structural properties and to examine ultraviolet (UVA part) and visible (Vis) transmittance with and without UV filters of the commercially available silicone hydrogel (SiHy) and bio-hydrogel (bio-Hy) soft contact lenses (CLs) in vitro. Place and Duration of Study: Hacettepe University, Department of Physics, Ankara, Turkey, between May 2018 and May 2021. Methodology:Attenuated Total Reflectance Fourier Transform Infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectra of CLs were recorded (at removing from its package, after 10 min, 1 h and 1 day at room temperature) in the 4000-650 cm-1region to estimate water contents of CLs. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) was performed to differentiate chemical structure of CLs based on the spectral differences. Ultraviolet (UVA) and visible light transmittance of (CLs) was measured in the 315 -800 nm region. Small Angle X-ray Scattering (SAXS) analyses were performed to obtain further structural information on nano-scale. Results: One of the key observations in this study is the large influence of lens water content. The HCA analysis grouped all the CLs of same brand in same cluster based on their chemical similarity. The UVA transmittance results showed that CLs with UV blockers almost met ClassI and ClassII standards. The size (11.8-39.9 nm) and differences in morphologies of the nano globules were determined and correlated with equilibrium water content (EWC). Conclusion: This work was designed to explain important characteristics of commercial CLs and results will have implications for future experimental and clinical research regarding hydration/ dehydration experiments with CL polymers.

show abstract

How practitioners say they answer the questions of patients about ultraviolet protection

Alobaid

Boon

Dain

2021

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients should be able to rely on optometrists and optical dispensers to provide evidence-based answers to their questions on eye protection, including against ultraviolet radiation. Surveys indicate that there is public concern about the need for protection against ultraviolet radiation, particularly in sunlight. This investigation aimed to evaluate the quality of information provided by practitioners in response to typical questions to which they might reasonably be expected to have ready answers. A cross-sectional study was conducted of on-site responses from attendees of a 3 day optical fair, in Sydney, Australia, in 2017. Subjects were not forewarned about the study. The portion of the questionnaire reported here comprised open answers to four questions intended to represent typical enquiries of patients. The questions were about recommendations for ultraviolet protection in the context of 1) computer use, 2) outdoor use, 3) driving and 4) under office lighting. Eighty-three participants returned completed questionnaires out of 140 issued (61% response). The open-answer question responses were grouped into appropriate, borderline (mostly appropriate but mixed with non-UVR related recommendations) and others (mostly non-UVR related recommendations) and by job title. The proportion of appropriate answers to the four questions were 20%, 30%, 12% and 15%, respectively, which did not differ by job title. A significantly higher proportion of optical dispensers than optometrists selected 'Don't know/no answer' for all questions except office use. Eyecare professionals need to be educated on eye protection against UV radiation to improve the quality of information to be given to the public.

show abstract

Ultraviolet radiation transmission of soft disposable contact lenses and ISO 18369: claims and compliance

Cited by 3 publications

References 11 publications

Ultraviolet and Visible Transmittance of Soft Contact Lenses with and without Ultraviolet Blockers

Ultraviolet and Visible Transmittance of Soft Contact Lenses with and without Ultraviolet Blockers

ATR-FTIR, SAXS and UV-Vis Studies of Silicone Hydrogel and Bio-Hydrogel Soft Contact Lenses

How practitioners say they answer the questions of patients about ultraviolet protection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About