4.7 Article

Interfacial polymerization of a thin film on contact lenses for improving lubricity

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 571, 期 -, 页码 356-367

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2020.03.060

关键词

Wettability; Lubricity; Contact lenses; Friction; Contact angle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypothesis: A large number of contact lens wearers drop out each year due to end of day discomfort, which could possibly be reduced by designing lenses with highly lubricious surfaces. We hypothesize that polymerizing a thin film of dimethyl acrylamide (DMA) on the surface of the lenses will improve lubricity. Experiments: The thin film is polymerized by loading a commercial contact lens (1-DAY ACUVUE (R) TruEye (R)) with N,N,N',N'-Tetramethylethane-1,2-diamine (TEMED) and soaking it in a solution of DMA and ammonium per sulfate (APS). The two components of the redox couple (APS and TEMED) mix near the surface of the lens due to diffusion and react rapidly to form free radicals. The free radicals lead the polymerization of the DMA monomer near the surface resulting in the formation of the thin hydrogel layer that is attached to the lens matrix through activation of unreacted vinyl groups or possibly through formation of entanglements with the lens polymer. Findings: The thickness of the layer is controlled by the polymerization time which is limited to 30 s to create a layer of DMA only at the surface. The presence of the DMA layer is confirmed through measurements of Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) spectra in total internal reflection mode. The layer is determined to be about 3-5 mu m thick with a water content of about 285%. The presence of the layer significantly improves lubricity as is evident through the qualitative rubbing test and quantitative measurement of the friction coefficient. A preliminary one-week safety study in rabbits show that lens wear does not cause any toxicity. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据