Development and Preliminary Evaluation of a System to Rapidly Measure Coefficient of Friction on Soft Contact Lenses
International Journal of Ophthalmology & Visual Science
Volume 4, Issue 4, December 2019, Pages: 88-96
Received: Oct. 2, 2019; Accepted: Oct. 22, 2019; Published: Nov. 14, 2019
Views 452      Downloads 122
Authors
Daniel Joseph Hook, Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Rochester, USA
Charles Phillip Lusignan, Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Rochester, USA; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, USA
Katarzyna Aneta Wygladacz, Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Rochester, USA
Jeffery Merrill Schafer, Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Rochester, USA
Robert Brian Steffen, Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Rochester, USA
William Thomas Reindel, Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Rochester, USA
Gary Michael Mosehauer, Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Rochester, USA
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
This study was undertaken to 1. develop an apparatus to rapidly measure coefficient of friction (COF) on soft contact lenses; 2. determine if COFs measured on two daily-disposable lens models before and after wear are consistent with changes in lens surface morphology observed in parallel atomic force microscopy (AFM) images. Methods: A stress rheometer was adapted to measure COF on a soft contact lens by custom fabrication of a rapid-mount sample stage for increased throughput. Five subjects were randomly assigned to wear daily disposable nesofilcon A and delefilcon A contact lenses bilaterally for 4 hours, after which time lenses were removed. Static and kinetic COFs of lenses worn on left eyes was measured, while lenses worn on right eyes were imaged in parallel by AFM in tapping mode. Root mean square (RMS) surface roughness was calculated for all lenses to determine the effect of wear on surface topography. Results: Both static and kinetic COFs measured on unworn delefilcon A silicone hydrogel lenses were greater than on nesofilcon A traditional hydrogel lenses. Static COF on nesofilcon A increased significantly after wear, while kinetic COF trended higher but did not change significantly. Similarly, static COF on delefilcon A also increased significantly after wear, and kinetic COF trended higher but did not change significantly, both remaining greater than on worn nesofilcon A. Parallel AFM analysis demonstrated that nesofilcon A lenses are smoother than are delefilcon A out of the package. Both lenses attracted deposits during wear, but the nesofilcon A surface was less altered by on-eye wear than was the delefilcon A surface. Conclusion: A system to rapidly measure static and kinetic COFs was successfully developed. Static and kinetic COFs measured on delefilcon A were greater than on nesofilcon A lenses. More deposits and greater surface roughness were observed after wear on delefilcon A relative to nesofilcon A. Parallel AFM images of worn and unworn lenses were not predictive of measured COFs, but increased roughness visible by AFM was consistent with observed increases in COF, although not all increases were statistically significant.
Keywords
Daily Disposable Contact Lens, Atomic Force Microscopy, Coefficient of Friction, Tribological Measurement Technique
To cite this article
Daniel Joseph Hook, Charles Phillip Lusignan, Katarzyna Aneta Wygladacz, Jeffery Merrill Schafer, Robert Brian Steffen, William Thomas Reindel, Gary Michael Mosehauer, Development and Preliminary Evaluation of a System to Rapidly Measure Coefficient of Friction on Soft Contact Lenses, International Journal of Ophthalmology & Visual Science. Vol. 4, No. 4, 2019, pp. 88-96. doi: 10.11648/j.ijovs.20190404.16
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Roba M, Duncan EG, Hill GA, Spencer ND, Tosatti SGP. Friction measurements on contact lenses in their operating environment. Tribol Lett. 2011; 44 (3): 387-397.
[2]
Brennan N. Contact lens-based correlates of soft lens wearing comfort. Optom Vis Sci. 2009; 86: E-abstract 90957. Available from: https://www.aaopt.org/detail/knowledge-base-article/contact-lens-based-correlates-soft-lens-wearing-comfort. Accessed October 15, 2019.
[3]
Stapleton F, Tan J. Impact of contact lens material, design, and fitting on discomfort. Eye Contact Lens. 2017; 43 (1): 32-39.
[4]
Nairn JA, Jiang T. Measurement of the friction and lubricity properties of contact lenses. Proceedings of ANTEC’95, Boston MA, May 7-11, 1995. Available from: http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/wse/faculty/Nairn/papers/contacts.pdf. Accessed October 15, 2019.
[5]
Rennie AC, Dickrell PL, Sawyer WG. Friction coefficient of soft contact lenses: measurements and modeling. Tribol Lett. 2005; 18 (4): 499–504.
[6]
Sterner O, Aeschlimann R, Zürcher S, Scales C, Riederer D, Spencer ND, Tosatti SGP. Tribological classification of contact lenses: From coefficient of friction to sliding work. Tribol Lett. 2016; 63: 9.
[7]
Dunn AC, Cobb JA, Kantzios AN, Lee SJ, Sarntinoranont M, Tran-Son-Tay R, Sawyer WG. Friction coefficient measurement of hydrogel materials on living epithelial cells. Tribol Lett. 2008; 30: 13–19.
[8]
Ngai V, Medley JB, Jones L, Forrest J, Teichroeb J. Friction of contact lenses: silicone hydrogel versus conventional hydrogel. Tribol Interface Eng Ser. 2005; 48: 371–379.
[9]
Sterner O, Aeschlimann R, Zürcher S, Osborn Lorenz K, Kakkassery J, Spencer ND, Tosatti SG. Friction measurements on contact lenses in a physiologically relevant environment: Effect of testing conditions on friction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016; 57 (13): 5383-5392.
[10]
Zhou B, Li Y, Randall NX, Li L. A study of the frictional properties of senofilcon-A contact lenses. [J]. Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2011; 4 (7): 1336-42.
[11]
Hagedorn S, Drolle E, Lorentz H, Srinivasan S, Leonenko Z, Jones L. Atomic force microscopy and Langmuir-Blodgett monolayer technique to assess contact lens deposits and human meibum extracts. [J]. Optom. 2015; 8 (3): 187-99.
[12]
Lira M, Santos L, Azeredo J, Yebra-Pimentel E, Real Oliveira ME. Comparative study of silicone-hydrogel contact lenses surfaces before and after wear using atomic force microscopy. [J]. Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008; 85 (2): 361-7.
[13]
Teichroeb JH, Forrest JA, Ngai V, Martin JW, Jones L, Medley J. Imaging protein deposits on contact lens materials. Optom Vis Sci. 2008; 85 (2): 1151-64.
[14]
Toca-Herrera JL. Atomic force microscopy meets biophysics, bioengineering, chemistry, and materials science. ChemSusChem. 2019; 12 (3): 603-611.
[15]
Maver U, Velnar T, Gaberšček C, Planinšek O, Finšgar M. Recent progressive use of atomic force microscopy in biomedical applications. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistr. 2016; 80: 96-111.
[16]
Ye Z, Zhao X. Phase imaging atomic force microscopy in the characterization of biomaterials. [J]. Microsc. 2010; 238 (1): 27-35.
[17]
FDA 510 (k) Summary K113703. Bausch +Lomb nesofilcon A contact lens. June 5, 2012. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf11/K113703.pdf. Accessed October 15, 2019.
[18]
FDA 510 (k) Summary K113168. Delefilcon A Soft Contact Lenses, 510 (k) Summary of Safety and Substantial Equivalence. March 30, 2012. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf11/K113168.pdf. Accessed October 15, 2019.
[19]
Fda. gov [homepage on the Internet]. Rockville, MD: US Food and Drug Administration. [updated 2016 June 27; cited Aug 10, 2018]. FDA Executive Summary. Prepared for the May 13, 2014 Meeting of the Ophthalmic Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. Contact Lens and Care Product Guidance Documents. Available from: https://creativesrv.bid/library/?sid=rwHURXwhuRGCIH8tyL42nQm1kWWMxinLqASe2IMP0MombfhRhGJek51jW5l6oXPoLIJBAczaplY4npMyhoIHGcC5Bj1G8dBbNf3v&fn=FDA%20Executive%20Summary%20Prepared%20for%20the%20May%2013, %202014%20Meeting%20of.pdf. Accessed October 15, 2019.
[20]
Qiu Y, Samuel NT, Pruitt JD, et al., inventors; Novartis AG, assignee. Silicone hydrogel lens with a crosslinked hydrophilic coating. United States patent US 8529057. September 10, 2013. Available from: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8529057.pdf. Accessed October 15, 2019.
[21]
Pruitt J, Qiu Y, Thekveli S, Hart R. Surface characterisation of a water gradient silicone hydrogel contact lens (delefilcon A). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: E-Abstract 6107. Available from: https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2359806. Accessed October 15, 2019.
[22]
Shaw AJ, Collins MJ, Davis BA, Carney LG. Eyelid pressure and contact with the ocular surface. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51 (4): 1911-7.
[23]
Kovalev AE, Dening K, Persson BN, Gorb SN. Surface topography and contact mechanics of dry and wet human skin. Beilstein J Nanotechnol. 2014; 5: 1341-8.
[24]
Mourougou-Candoni N. Chapter 3. Tapping mode AFM imaging for functionalized surfaces. In: Atomic Force Microscopy Investigations into Biology - From Cell to Protein (C Frewin, Ed.). London: Intech Open Limited; 2012: 55–84.
[25]
Kwon KA, Shipley RJ, Edirisinghe M, Ezra DG, Rose G, Best SM, Cameron RE. High-speed camera characterization of voluntary eye blinking kinematics. [J]. R Soc Interface 2013; 10 (85): 20130227.
[26]
Abusharha AA. Changes in blink rate and ocular symptoms during different reading tasks. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2017; 9: 133-138.
[27]
Gellatly KW, Brennan NA, Efron N. Visual decrement with deposit accumulation of HEMA contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1988; 65 (12): 937-41.
[28]
Schafer J, Steffen R, Reindel W, Chinn J. Evaluation of surface water characteristics of novel daily disposable contact lens materials, using refractive index shifts after wear. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015; 9: 1973-9.
[29]
Sawyer W, Urueña J, Angelini T, Dunn A, Pruitt J. Laboratory model for wear of contact lenses and effects on lens lubricity of surface gel layers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54: E-Abstract 493. Available from: https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2149842. Accessed October 15, 2019.
[30]
Dunn AC, Juan Manuel Urueña MJ, Huo Y, Perry SS, Angelini TE, Sawyer WG. Lubricity of surface hydrogel layers. Tribol Lett. 2013; 49 (2): 371–378.
[31]
Mann A, Tighe BJ. Chapter 3. Ocular biotribology and the contact lens: Surface interactions and ocular response. In: Biomaterials and Regenerative Medicine in Ophthalmology (Second Edition). London: Elsevier. Woodhead Publishing Series in Biomaterials; 2016: 45-74.
[32]
Dunn AC, Sawyer WG, Angelini TE. Gemini interfaces in aqueous lubrication with hydrogels. Tribol Lett. 2014; 54 (1): 59–66.
[33]
Hook D, Taft S, Steffen R, Merchea MM. Comparing the static and kinetic friction of unworn and worn silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55: E-Abstract 4654. Available from: https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2270186. Accessed October 15, 2019.
[34]
Rudy A, Huo Y, Perry SS, Ketelson HA. Surface mechanical and tribological properties of silicone hydrogels measured by Atomic Force Microscopy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53: E-Abstract 6114. Available from: https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2359813. Accessed October 15, 2019.
[35]
Schafer J, Hook D, Lusignan C, Steffen RB. Coefficient of friction analysis of unworn and worn daily disposable contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015; 56: E-Abstract 6110. Available from: https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2336216. Accessed October 15, 2019.
[36]
Subbaraman LN, Glasier MA, Varikooty J, Srinivasan S, Jones L. Protein deposition and clinical symptoms in daily wear of etafilcon lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2012; 89 (10): 1450-9.
[37]
Suwala M, Glasier MA, Subbaraman LN, Jones L. Quantity and conformation of lysozyme deposited on conventional and silicone hydrogel contact lens materials using an in vitro model. Eye Contact Lens. 2007; 33 (3): 138-43.
[38]
Castillo EJ, Koenig JL, Anderson JM, Lo J. Protein adsorption on hydrogels. II. Reversible and irreversible interactions between lysozyme and soft contact lens surfaces. Biomaterials. 1985; 6 (5): 338-45.
[39]
Garrett Q, Laycock B, Garrett RW. Hydrogel lens monomer constituents modulate protein sorption. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41 (7): 1687-95.
[40]
Garrett Q, Garrett RW, Milthorpe BK. Lysozyme sorption in hydrogel contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999; 40 (5): 897-903.
[41]
Garrett Q, Chatelier RC, Griesser HJ, Milthorpe BK. Effect of charged groups on the adsorption and penetration of proteins onto and into carboxymethylated poly (HEMA) hydrogels. Biomaterials. 1998; 19 (23): 2175-86.
[42]
González-Méijome JM, López-Alemany A, Almeida JB, Parafita MA. Surface AFM microscopy of unworn and worn samples of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. [J]. Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009; 88 (1): 75–82.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186