In Vitro Analysis of the Physical Properties of Contact Lens Blister Pack Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Since the initial development of silicone hydrogels, many modifications to the bulk and surface properties of the lenses have been undertaken to improve the wettability and comfort of the lenses. Recently, manufacturers have incorporated various "wetting agents" or surface-active agents into the blister packaging solutions (BPSs) of the lenses to improve initial comfort of the lens on eye. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the pH, surface tension (ST), viscosity, and osmolality of BPSs for a variety of silicone hydrogel and polyHEMA-based hydrogel lenses. In addition, two saline solutions were tested for comparison purposes. METHODS: The pH, osmolality, ST, and viscosity were measured for the BPSs for lotrafilcon B and lotrafilcon A and lotrafilcon B with a "modified BPS" (m-lotrafilcon A, m-lotrafilcon B) (CIBA Vision, Duluth, GA); balafilcon A (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY); galyfilcon A, senofilcon A, and narafilcon A (Johnson & Johnson, Jacksonville, FL); and comfilcon A and enfilcon A (CooperVision, Pleasanton, CA) and BPSs from two conventional polyHEMA-based materials-etafilcon A (Johnson & Johnson) and omafilcon A (CooperVision). The two saline solutions tested were Unisol (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX) and Softwear Saline (CIBA Vision). RESULTS: The pH results for the two saline solutions and all BPSs remained in the pH range of tears (6.6-7.8). The ST of the modified BPS was significantly lower (p < 0.01) than the original non-modified BPS. Viscosity measurements ranged between 0.90 and 1.00 cP for all BPSs and saline solutions, except for the modified BPS, which had significantly higher viscosities (p < 0.001). Osmolality measurements were not significantly different (p > 0.05) between BPSs made by the same manufacturer but were significantly different compared with BPSs made by different manufacturers (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of wetting agents and surfactants into BPSs does alter the physical properties of the BPSs, which may have clinical implications regarding initial in-eye comfort.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".