The consequences of removing fluorinated compounds from rigid contact lenses
Author:
Eddleston Mark D.1, Raduly Levente1, Tapper Tristan T.1, Hughes Reece J.1, Browne Gareth M.1, Conway Martin J.1
Affiliation:
1. Euromcontact , Avenue des Arts 56 , 1000 Brussels , Belgium
Abstract
Abstract
Fluorine free analogues of three commercially available rigid contact lens materials were prepared by replacing the fluorinated component, hexafluoroisopropyl methacrylate (HFPM), with the widely used, non-fluorinated monomers methyl methacrylate (MMA) and 3-methacryloxypropyltris-(trimethylsiloxy)silane (TRIS). The properties of the commercial materials and analogues were measured and compared. The oxygen permeabilities of the MMA analogues were found to be significantly lower than those of the commercial materials, decreasing by 87 % on average, while the TRIS analogues lacked sufficient hardness, dimensional stability and lipid deposit resistance to be viable for use in rigid contact lenses. Analogues prepared using a 1:1 mixture of MMA and TRIS had the best overall combination of properties, but were still on average 47 % less permeable to oxygen and also significantly less resistant to lipid deposition. The analogues prepared in this study did not adequately replicate the performance of marketed, fluorine containing rigid contact lens materials. These observations give an indication of the challenges that would face contact lens material manufacturers in preparing rigid lens polymers without the use of fluorinated species. A reduction in effectiveness would be almost inevitable, and would be expected to have a negative impact on the safety and eye health of rigid contact lens patients.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Subject
Materials Chemistry,Polymers and Plastics,General Chemical Engineering
Reference74 articles.
1. Downie, L. E., Lindsay, R. G. Contact lens management of keratoconus. Clin. Exp. Optom. 2015, 98, 299–311; https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12300. 2. Manchester University, NHS Foundation, Trust. Contact Lenses for Keratoconus. Information for Patients, REH 210 TIG 135/14, Reviewed 2019. https://mft.nhs.uk/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/04/REH-210.pdf (accessed Jul 20, 2022). 3. Leung, K. K. Y. RGP fitting philosophies for keratoconus. Clin. Exp. Optom. 1999, 82, 230–235; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.1999.tb06653.x. 4. Rathi, V. M., Mandathara, P. S., Dumpati, S. Contact lens in keratoconus. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2013, 61, 410–415; https://doi.org/10.4103%2F0301-4738.116066. 5. Barnett, M., Courey, C., Fadel, D., Lee, K., Michaud, L., Montani, G., van der Worp, E., Vincent, S. J., Walker, M., Bilkhu, P., Morgan, P. B. BCLA CLEAR – Scleral lenses. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 2021, 44, 240–269; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2021.02.003.
|
|