Aust J. Optom. (1980); 63, (6): 273-279 Unravelling Contact Lens Specifications* NATHAN EFRON Department of Optometry, University of Melbourne ABSTRACT Contact lens practitioners often rely on specifications supplied by manufacturers for information on new lens materials and new lens designs. Comparison of different contact lenses on the basis of this information is made difficult by the use of non-standard test procedures and a lack of con- sistency in the presentation of data. In this paper commonly used parameters are explained and their relative importance is discussed. It is suggested that independent reports provide the best method of com- parison. Keywords: contact lens specifications, designs, materials, refractive index, optical transmission, density, ‘material strength, water content, oxygen permeability Today's contact lens practitioner must not only be capable of keeping abreast of changes in lens design and fitting techniques, but must also be able to evalu- ate new materials as they enter the market. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of materials from which contact lenses can be made, and now practi- tioners are faced with many choices of lens material from which a particular lens might be designed. Whilst practitioners are not expected to be experts in polymer chemistry, a basic understanding of com- monly used specifications is necessary to enable them to undertake a balanced evaluation of various lens types. This information can be obtained from various sources, the primary one being the practitioner guides supplied by the lens distributors. Other sources of information include journal articles, advertisements and independent reports. An increasing emphasis has been placed upon an acceptable physiological response as one indicator of a successful contact lens regime. The appearance of cor- neal striae and oedema! endothelial? and epithelial? changes and limbal vascularisation* are important signs of potential problems. The vast array of lens materials and designs available today enables one to effectively manipulate a more diverse range of parameters such as water content, oxygen transmissibility and lens thick- ness, all of which can have a direct effect on corneal integrity. ‘Adapted from a paper presented at a Continuing Education techni cal meeting, at the Victorian College of Optometry, August 19, 1980. Aust, J. Optom, 63.6: November 1980 In this report, the technical specifications that appear in the practitioner literature of eight contact lens companies will be considered (Table 1). Key parameters will be defined, and the value of the data supplied and the manner in which itis presented will be discussed. This information can be considered under five basic headings: 1. optical properties 2. density and specific gravity 3. material strength 4. water properties 5. oxygen performance Each of these shall be dealt with separately Supple [Lens Trade Name Material Bausch & Lomb Soflens I-hydrony-ethyl-methacrylae Cooper Laboratories Hydrocurvell —_2-hydroxyethy-methacrylate N-(1,ledimethyl-3-onybuwt- sctylamie) and methacrylic acid Permalens 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate ‘Nevinyl pyrrolidone and other smethacrylates Hoya Hoya Soft Thydroxyethy-methacryate Hiyéron Hydron hydroxyethyl methacyate Menicon o> ‘methacry methylsloxane Smith & Nephew Snoflex30 MMA-n-viny!| pyrtolidone—"G-MEMA WACLM. Gelfex 60 smino-amido acid co-polymer Getflex75 imino-ammido acd co-polymer Wonik Parabol polymethylmethacryiate zi Hariex cellulose acetate butyrate Hycroifex Inydroxyethyl methac sillex silicon eubber Table 1 Contact lenses evaluated in this study listed by suppliers, lens trade name and chemical composition of lens material, Optical Properties Refractive Index The refractive index for any substance is defined as the ratio of the velocity of light of a given wavelength ina vacuum to its velocity in the substance’ In simple terms, it gives an indication of the “‘light bending ability”” of a material. Refractive index as a ratio of velocity has no unit, and is usually designated as follows: ng = 1.43 where the subscript p refers to the Helium-D-line (587.56nm), which is the wavelength of light used to make the determination. It is necessary to stipulate this atone Paramcier Softens Re index (NBH20) Visibetight T (e=0.78rmm) Hydrocurvelt Notsuted Permalens Notstated Hoya Sot Indexofretacton (°C) 145 Hydron Refractive index: Dry 151 Rydwed 183 Optica transmission >95/em Menicon0; Refractive index (NB) vn Visbleight T3100 (030mm) >98% Snotex 50 Refrcive i 151 rat Optical ansmission 38cm Genes 60 Refrctive index: Dry 1565 wet ras Optica larity by ight seater 2mm sample allowing fr turfuerefiecion om Gaines 75 Refractive index: Dry 1635 Wet 16 Optica clarity by ight seater Imm sample allowing for furfterefection 0% Parsboter Refractive index (N 1493 Marites Refractive index (NP 1476 Hydroniex Refractive index (230), intext 14448 Silex Refrsctveinder (25%) 1436 ‘Table 2 Optical properties of contact lenses: data as supplied by lens manufacturers. wavelength, because the refractive index of a given material varies with the wavelength of the light passing, through it. If wavelength is not stated, one can assume that the yellow Helium-D-line has been used. The superscript ° indicates the temperature (°C) at which the measurement is made. Refractive index is used mainly for calculation pur- poses. Practitioners will be interested primarily in the hydrated refractive index; dry values are usually only of interest to the laboratory (Table 2) Light Transmission Light transmission may be defined as the ratio of light which passes through a sample to that which enters it, expressed as a percentage. Strictly speaking, the range of the spectrum over which the light transmission has been calculated should be stated. Transmission values in Table 2 range from 90% to 98%, all of which are satisfactory. A statement of light transmission is therefore only of limited use to the practitioner, as it is unlikely to be a factor in choosing a suitable contact lens. Density and Specific Gravity The density of a material is defined as its mass divided by its volume. The unit of density most com- monly quoted in the contact lens literature is g/em? The terms ml, cc and cm? are essentially synonymous. It has been suggestedé that the density of a contact lens material can be important clinically. A lens of high density may be disadvantageous because it would be a4 heavier and might not centre on the cornea properly compared to a lens of low density material. Conversely, in the case of prism ballast lenses, the greater base apex weight differential of high density materials might afford better location properties. Often the specific gravity is quoted. This is defined as the mass of a body divided by the mass of an equal volume of water’ Thus it gives an indication of the density relative to water. By definition, the specific gra- vity of water is unity. Since the density of water is 1.00g/ml at 20°C, it can be shown that the numerical values of specific gravity and density are directly com- parable: Specific Gravity Met Ww Vou * De Vw X Dw By definition, Vw = Ver and Dw = 1.00 Thus, SpecificGravity = De, where M, V, and D refer to mass, volume and density respectively, and CL and W refer to contact lens and water. The above derivation is true to two significant figures, which is adequate for contact lens work. Values of density and specific gravity are given in Table 3. Lens Parameter Value Softens Not stated Hydrocurvell ——_Notstated Permatens Not stated Hoya Soft Specific gravity (20°C) 43 Hydron Density Litgfee Menicon 03 Specific gravity (20°C) Ls Snoex 50 Density: Dry 122¢/em? Hydrated 1098/em! Geitex 60 Not stated Getfex 75 Not stated Perabolar Not stated Haritex Not stated Hydrofiex Notstated Silex Density (22°C) LI9—1.208/em3 gravity of contact lenses: data supplied ble 3 Density and specif by lens manufacturers, Material Strength An important characteristic of a contact lens material is its ability to maintain its physical dimen- sions, or return to its original shape after external forces have been applied. Many mechanical tests can be applied to a material to rate its performance, some of which shall be reviewed here. In order to investigate the tensile properties of a contact lens it must be cut into a standard shape. A typical example is given in Figure 1. A tensile stress, or Joad per unit area of minimum cross section, can then be applied. Units of tensile stress are ke/cm?. In this example, a 30g force is applied, resulting in a tensile stress of 2 kg/cm? Aust. 1 Optom, 63.6: November 1980Z a [——] no stress 4 =A . F t 30mm J 2kglem? 020mm p——| CROSS SECTIONAL AREA: 0:015cm? APPLY FORCE: 30gm TENSILE STRESS: 2kg/cm2 Figure 1: Typical dimensions of a section of contact lens material in preparation for application ofa tensile stress, The tensile stress is the force per unit area of minimum cross section. In this example, a 30g longitudinal force is applied to a sample with a minimum eross Sec tioned area of 0.015cm?, resulting ina tensile stress of 2ke/em?. On application of this stress, the material will immediately elongate, and the extent of this elongation is termed tensile strain. If a constant strain is applied over a long period of time, the material will continue to elongate slowly. This long term deformation is referred to as tensile creep, but it is of little significance in con- tact lens practice since lenses are usually not subjected to such long term forces (Figure 2) If the strain is gradually increased the material will continue to elongate until a point is reached where there will be an increase in strain without a further increase in stress. This is known as the yield point (Figure 3). The tensile stress at yield point is a useful indicator of material strength as it indicates the degree of stress a material can withstand without being = NO STRESS TENSILE CREEP Figure 2: (a) Plan view of the section of material illustrated in Figure 1 not under any stress. (b) The material under tensile stress. The extent of elongation is termed tensile strain. (c) If the tensile sirain is maintained for a few hours the material will continue to slowly elongate. This elongation is known as tensile creep. and is « long-term effect. Aus J. Optom, 63.6: November 1980 Pkg ic? ZS jp —<—<—_| {— 6kgicm? PH ee YIELD POINT f— _6kglem? a Figure 3: Effect of gradual increase in stress In this example a stress of up to 6kg/em? results in a corresponding increase in material elongation (strain). Yield point is reached when strain increases without a further increase in stress, deformed permanently. The strain at yield point is also @ useful indicator of the strength of a material. Further stress can be applied until breakage occurs; the tensile stress at this stage is commonly referred to as the tensile strength of the material. This is a less use- ful measure of material strength, since a contact lens that has been stretched beyond the yield point will be of no further use. The relationship between stress and strain can be represented graphically (Figure 4). The slope of the initial linear portion of this relationship is known as the modulus of elasticity, or Young’s Modulus, where: Stress = Young’s Modulus x Strain A higher modulus of elasticity indicates a stronger material. The stress-strain relationships of four contact Jens materials are illustrated in Figure 5. Although material B has a higher tensile strength and modulus of elasticity than material C, the latter has a higher stress value at yield point and would probably be a more use- ful contact lens material A material can be described as an elastomer if, at room temperature, it can be stretched repeatedly to at least twice its original length and immediately upon release will return with force to its approximate original length. Silicon rubber is an example of an elastomer, Whilst various characteristics of the stress-strain relationship can be presented (Table 4), the absolute values quoted are of little use if they cannot be com- pared with other lens types. Thus, parameters such as “load to 10% extension” or “tensile modulus (40% strain)”” are not particularly useful. Similarly, stating that a material behaves “elastically” or has “good” 2sSTRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP TENSILE STRENGTH ‘AT. BREAK STRESS (kg em?) SLOPE = YOUNG'S MODULUS o 0 wD 0 OO STRAIN (%) 2 ELONGATION AT BREAK Figure 4: The relationship between stress and strain as represented diagtamatically in Figure 3 expressed graphically. This is @ typical stress-strain relationship of a hydrophilic contact ens material. The slope of the initial linear portion of the graph is known as the ‘modulus of elasticity, oF Young’s modulus. The graph discontinues when breakage occurs; the tensile strength at this point is 4kg/em2, The tensile stress at yield point is 3kp/em?, which represents the ‘maximum stress this lens can withstand before becoming perma- rently deformed, tensile strength is of no value to the practitioner as all lenses have these properties. There are many other methods of specifying material strength, Tear strength refers to the force 'STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP 5 a iC) 4 ic) STRESS (kg em?) 2 (a) 1 o o » © 0 w STRAIN (I Figure 5: Stress-strain relationship of four contact lens materials. Material Ais characteristic of an elastomer. The modulus of elasticity decreases from material A to material D. Although ‘material B has a higher tensile stress at break than material C, the latter would be a more useful contact lens material because it has a higher tensile stress at yield. Material D displays poor tensile proper- ties. 276 required to propagate a tear in a notched specimen. The result of the test is expressed as the force per unit Iength of the resultant tear. It is difficult to compare the results of various laboratories as the result will depend to a large extent on how the test was conducted. Fac- tors such as the depth of the notch, mode of applying the force, lens sample thickness, and lens temperature could affect the results. Flexural strength indicates the ability of the material to resist repeated flexure. The test simply involves flexing a material repeatedly until a fracture occurs, and the result is expressed as the number of cycles required to cause a fracture in the material. This test would correlate closely with soft lens handling and be a most useful guide to the practitioner. It would demonstrate the ability of a lens to withstand a daily manual cleaning regime. Unfortunately, this parameter is not quoted by contact lens laboratories. Many commercial instruments are available for measuring hardness, which is the ability of a material to withstand local compression forces. The most com- Lens Parameter Sonens Softening point 7 Hydrocurve I! Tensilestrength Material behaviour ” Permatens (Nothing stated) Hoye Soft Tensilestrength 845 ¢/mm? Hygron Tensile strength 03 107 dynefem? Tensile modulus (0.2 107 dyne/em? Tea resistance S0g/mm Menicon On Hardness (Bickers) Dry 86 wet76 Scratch hardness Dry 91 Wet bu Smofex 50 Tensilestrength (hydrated) 7.Lkavem? Teac strength O.08kg/em? Loadto 10bextension ——_O.6kg/em? Elongation to break 1208 Geinex60 Tensilesteength (hydrated) 4.5kg/em? Tensile modulus (40% stain) 2.6kg/em? Etongation o break ase Elongation for 98% recovery in , multiply by 0.1348 ise 140 2 Dk= oxygen permesbii Oxygen permeability 20%C 13 9em?see/mI0>/mimm Units are Cem?» m0) mlx mel) 58°C _19.5emsee/mOa/mlmam "C19 Sem7see/miOy/mimm HE | 5, Dis oxygen teansmissbilty Sitfex Water content Notstated Oxygen performance Notstated Unit are em x 103) /(2% mlx mms) Table $ Parameters describing water content and oxygen performance: data supplied by lens manufacturers. technique, the variations in both experimental condi- tions and units adopted make comparisons of lens oxygen performance from manufacturers data a difficult task. More reliable comparisons of oxygen permeability are obtained from studies of independent observes, such as that of Morris and Fatt? Oxygen Transmissibility (Dk/L) This is the oxygen permeability, Dk, divided by the lens centre thickness, L, (in cm). This parameter gives an indication of how easily oxygen can pass through a lens of known thickness. Oxygen transmissibility is a property of a contact lens, and it will increase as the centre thickness of the lens decreases. It can not be stated, for example, that a particular hydrophili material has a certain oxygen transmissibility. 28 The flux, or rate of transfer, of oxygen through a lens can be expressed as: (, j= —Derker PsP where (P, — Po) is the oxygen tension difference bet- ween the two lens surfaces, L is the lens centre thick- ness, and the Dk the lens oxygen permeability? Assuming a constant oxygen tension difference bet- ween the lens surfaces and a constant lens Dk value, a thinner lens will maintain a greater oxygen flux to the cornea. Thus, a contact lens that is supplied in a range of thicknesses constitutes a lens of given oxygen per- meability available in a range of oxygen transmissibilities. Units of oxygen transmissibility are (cm x mlO,) / (s x ml x mmHg), and by convention Aust. J. Optom. 62.5: November 1980the exponent is now 10~%, again regardless of mantissa size. If the oxygen permeability of a certain contact lens material is known, the oxygen transmissibility can be calculated by measuring the lens centre thickness (on a device such as that described by Fatt"), and dividing it into the oxygen permeability. In this fashion, in-office evaluation and comparison of contact lens oxygen per- formances can be accomplished. Equivalent Oxygen Percentage (E.0.P.) This represents the percentage of atmospheric oxygen, by volume, at the cornea-contact lens inter- face beneath a given lens of known centre thickness. The E.O.P. values are derived from in vivo human or rabbit experiments, whereby the corneal response after application of a contact lens is compared to the corneal response to various gaseous environments of known oxygen content The percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere is 20.9% O,, and this represents the theoretical max- imum oxygen percentage at the cornea. If it is stated, for example, that the E.O.P. is 4% O, beneath a contact lens, it is inferred that the cornea is responding as if it was placed in an atmosphere containing 4% O,. The lens centre thickness must always be stated with E.0.P. values. Oxygen Tension (mmHg) The oxygen tension refers to the partial pressure References: 1, Polse KA, Sarver MD, Harris MG. Corneal edema and vertical striae accompanying the wearing of hydrogel lenses. Amer J Optom Physiol Opvcs 1975; $2 (3): 185-191 2, Zantos SG, Holden BA. Transient endothelial changes soon after wearing soft ‘contact lenses. Amer J Optom Physiol Optics 1977; 54 (12); 856-858, 3. Kline LN, Deluca TI. Pitting stain with soft contact lenses— Hydrocurve thin series. / Am Optom Assoc 1977; 48 (3): 372-376. 4. Tomlinson A, Haas DD. Changes in corneal thickness and cir- cumeorneal vascularisation with contact lens wear. Intern Contact Lens Clinic 1980; 7 (1): 26:37, 5. Weast RC, Editor in Chief, Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 45th ed, Cleveland, Ohio: The Chemical Rubber Co. 1964 6. Bier N, Lowther GE. Contact lens correction, London and Boston, Butterworths, 1977 7. Tighe BJ, Ng CO. The mechanical properties of contact lens ‘materials. Ophih Optician 1979; 19 (11): 394-402, ‘Aus, J. Optom, 63.8: November 1980 exerted by oxygen in given atmospheric conditions. The oxygen tension in air at sea level is 155mmHg, which is equivalent to a percentage of 20.9% 0, by volume. Oxygen tension values may be derived using the E.O.P. experimental technique or by theoretical calculation. E.O.P. and oxygen tension values are interchangeable, (see Table 5 for conversion), and in most instances they represent the same information but on different scales. Conclusion An understanding of contact lens specifications will enable practitioners to evaluate new contact lens materials and designs as they arrive on the market. This paper has sought to evaluate the data supplied by contact lens distributors in terms of its manner of pre- sentation and value to the practitioner. It has also attempted to explain the various specifications which ate commonly quoted in these publications and the literature generally. The information supplied was found to be of limited use because of a general lack of standardisation of measuring techniques and inconsistency of data pre- sentation. It is suggested that independent laboratory evaluations provide the most useful method of com- paring contact lens materials and designs. Acknowledgements: I wish to acknowledge the grateful assistance of Miss Helen Logan for the preparation of the figures. 8, Holly FJ, Refojo MF. Oxygen permeability of hydrogel contact lenses. Am Optom Assoc 1972; 43 (11): 1173-1180, 9. Mortis JA, Fatt I. A survey of gas-permeable contact lenses. The Optician 1977, 174 (4509): 27-36. 10. Fate 1. Gas transmission properties of soft contact lenses, In Ruben M. ED. Soft contact lenses: clinical and applied technology, Lon: don, Bailliere Tindall 1978: 83-110. IL, Fatt I. A simple electrical device for measuring thickness and sagittal height of gel comtact lenses, Optician 1977; 173 (4474): 23-24 Author's Address: ‘Nathan Efron, BSc (Optom), Department of Optometry, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA, a9