Physical Properties of Soft Contact Lens Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the physical properties of commercially available soft contact lens solutions. METHODS: The pH, osmolality, surface tension (ST), and viscosity of various soft contact lens solutions were measured at room temperature. Viscosity measurements were also taken at 34 degrees C. The solutions examined were Opti-Free Express (OFX), Opti-Free RepleniSH (OFR), Complete Moisture Plus (COM), UltraCare (UC), ReNu MultiPlus, Sensitive Eyes, AOSept (AO), Clear Care, SoloCare Aqua, and SoftWear saline. The peroxide solutions were measured before and after neutralization. RESULTS: The pH of most solutions was close to neutral (range 7.00-7.36), except for OFX and neutralized AO and Clear Care. The osmolality values of most solutions were in the 275 to 310 mOsm/kg range. OFX exhibited a significantly lower osmolality (225 mOsm/kg; p < 0.001), whereas UC was significantly higher (329 mOsm/kg; p < 0.001). Neutralized AO and SoftWear saline had ST values of approximately 67 mN/m. OFX, OFR, and SoloCare Aqua exhibited low ST values in the 30 to 35 mN/m range. The remaining solutions exhibited intermediate ST values of approximately 40 mN/m. These three groupings were significantly different (p < 0.001). The average viscosity of most solutions at room temperature was between 0.95 and 1.26 cP, except for COM (3.02 cP; p < 0.001). At 34 degrees C, the average viscosity of most solutions was between 0.70 and 0.83 cP, except for COM, which had a viscosity of 1.92 cP (p < 0.001). The un-neutralized peroxide solutions had very different pH and osmolality values from all the solutions that would directly contact the eye (p < 0.001). Their viscosity and ST values were similar (p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: This study detailed many physical properties of soft lens solutions that are not readily available and indicated that certain properties vary significantly among these products.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".