See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320915458

Mechanical Properties of Contact Lens Materials

Article  in  Eye & Contact Lens Science & Clinical Practice · November 2017
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000442

CITATIONS READS

4 2,432

3 authors:

Eon Kim Mou Saha

Brien Holden Vision Institute Jadavpur University
9 PUBLICATIONS   53 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Klaus Ehrmann
Brien Holden Vision Institute
78 PUBLICATIONS   727 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effect of gamma irradiation on the properties of polymer films View project

New Generation Polymer Electrolytes with Magnetic & Non-magnetic Fillers: Study of the Ionic Conduction Mechanism for Application in Solid State Devices” View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eon Kim on 17 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE
Mechanical Properties of Contact Lens Materials
Eon Kim, Ph.D., Mou Saha,
Objectives: To evaluate the mechanical properties of commonly available
soft contact lens materials and compare results using custom-built
MicroTensometer.
Methods: The Young modulus, parameters for stress relaxation, and
toughness of 18 types of single vision soft contact lenses were measured
using custom-built MicroTensometer. Five lenses of each type were soaked
in standard phosphate buffered saline and measured at a temperature of
35°C. Each lens was flattened and sliced into a rectangular strip sample
using two parallel blades.
Results: The Acuvue Moist 1-Day and SofLens Daily lenses measured
lowest moduli, whereas Air Optix Night & Day Aqua and Premio measured
the highest. The measured moduli for silicone hydrogel materials were gen-
erally higher compared with the hydrogels except for Dailies AquaComfort
Plus. The exponential curve fitted over the decay in stress showed a consistent
time constant of approximately 10 sec for most lens types measured. How-
ever, the amplitude constant varied from 2.84% for SofLens Daily to 22.39%
for Acuvue TruEye 1-Day. The toughness results showed that Dailies
AquaComfort Plus is strong but not necessarily tough.
Conclusions: The mechanical properties of commonly prescribed soft
contact lens materials were measured using a dedicated instrument. Its
reliability was demonstrated, and modulus results were compared against
published data from manufacturers and other research groups. Agreement
was generally good, with only a few exceptions exceeding 15% difference.
The more recently released silicone hydrogel lens types have reduced
modulus, approaching that of medium or high water content hydrogel
materials.
Key Words: Contact lenses—Mechanical properties—Young modulus—
Material testing.
(Eye & Contact Lens 2017;0: 1–9)
T he dominant reason for the ever-increasing popularity of soft
contact lenses over rigid lenses is their greater on-eye com-
fort, particularly for the neophyte wearer. The softness of the
material allows the lens to conform to the ocular shape
and minimizes interaction with the eyelids. Still, contact lens man-
From the Brien Holden Vision Institute Technology Department (E.K.,
M.S., K.E.), Sydney, Australia, and School of Optometry and Vision Science
(K.E.), University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in
the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. This work was entirely
funded by the Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, Australia.
Presented in part at as a poster at Asia-ARVO Conference 5–8 February,
2017, Brisbane, Australia.
Address correspondence to Eon Kim, Ph.D., Level 5, North Wing, Rupert
Myers Building, Gate 14, Barker Street, University of New South Wales,
Sydney NSW 2052, Australia; e-mail: e.kim@brienholdenvision.org
Accepted September 10, 2017.
DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000442
Eye & Contact Lens
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2017
Copyright
Contact Lens Association of Opthalmologists, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
M.Sc., and Klaus Ehrmann, Ph.D.
ufacturers continue to optimize their materials to improve their
physiological compatibility and comfort. A softer material is
generally considered to be more comfortable on eye, but lenses
with insufficient stiffness are difficult to handle and do not move
adequately on the eye to provide effective tear exchange underneath
the lens.1 Lens stiffness is primarily a function of material modulus
and lens thickness. Together with other material and surface prop-
erties, such as toughness, creep, surface friction, and wettability,
the lens manufacturer has considerable flexibility to design a lens
that performs well on the eye in vision, comfort, and physiological
health.
For the conventional hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)-
based hydrogels, the modulus was predominantly influenced by
the water content of the lens material, which typically range
from 30 to 80 percent and can be classified as low (less than
40%), medium (40%–60%), and high (more than 60%) water
content groups. In addition to an increase in material softness,
these higher water content lenses provide better oxygen perme-
ability, as water is the primary conductor for oxygen through the
lens. But even for the thinnest lenses with the highest water
content, oxygen supply to the cornea was still considered to
be inadequate, particularly for extended wear and closed eye
conditions. This led to the development of silicone hydrogel
materials, where the silicone component is the main and efficient
oxygen carrier through the lens. The first-generation silicone hy-
drogel materials targeted high oxygen permeability through a low
water content and were therefore stiffer than any of the traditional
hydrogels. These high modulus materials have been implicated in
reducing ocular comfort, corneal reshaping, corneal staining, and
the formation of conjunctival flaps.2–5 Realizing these clinical
complications,6–8 manufacturers have developed second- and
third-generation silicone hydrogel materials, sacrificing some
oxygen permeability by increasing their water content to achieve
softer materials, thus leading to greater physiological compatibil-
ity and acceptance of these new materials.9
Of the mechanical properties, modulus of elasticity is the most
important and most commonly quoted. Additional mechanical
properties include toughness, creep, stress relaxation (SR), and
surface hardness. According to Hooke Law, the property of
stiffness or the elasticity engenders the ability of a material to
return, within elastic limits, to its original shape and size after
deforming forces are removed. This property is defined by the
relationship between stress and strain where the stress is the load
per unit area, and strain is the extent of elongation. By fitting
a straight line through the quasi linear range of this stress-strain
(SS) curve, the Young modulus is obtained as the slope of that line.
As there is no defined standard for methods or equipment with
which to measure the modulus of soft contact lens materials,
manufacturers and researchers have implemented their own
1
 E. Kim et al.
techniques and conditions, which can lead to differences in
reported results. The most critical of these factors include the
sample temperature, the method used to keep the sample hydrated,
the range of elongation, the sample preparation, the resolution of
the data acquisition, and the measurement mode—tensile or
compression.
Young et al. and Horst et al. investigated modulus changes
with temperature for different contact lens materials.10,11 They
found that in general, the modulus decreases with higher tem-
peratures. The modulus can also vary with the type of contact
lens care product in which the lenses are soaked in.12 For the
most common method used to measure the modulus of soft lens
materials, the lenses are cut into strips of uniform width and
thickness. Horst et al.11 have introduced a novel method to
quantify the local deformations and to calculate local moduli
by sprinkling graphite particles on one surface of the strip and
recording local movement of the particles as a tensile load is
applied. Measuring lens samples of different thickness profiles,
they concluded that the modulus is not affected by the lens
thickness. Localized modulus measurements were also reported
by Lee et al.,13 where the microindentation instrument was used
to measure modulus in a compression mode. A similar method
using an atomic force microscopy probe was used by González-
Méijome et al.14 and Caglayan.15 Because of the different nature
of these measurements, their absolute modulus results are not
directly comparable with those obtained with the tensile
methods.
Very few studies have investigated properties other than
Young modulus of contact lens materials. In addition to the
Young modulus, tensile properties, such as tensile strength and
elongation-at-break, were calculated by Tranoudis.1 No signif-
icant correlations were observed between elongation-at-break
versus tensile strength and between elongation-at-break versus
Young modulus. This can be explained by the fact that a material
FIG. 1. (A) Custom-built MicroTensometer
showing (1) analytical balance, (2) motorized lin-
ear actuator, (3) clamps, and (4) a saline container
with heating coils and a thermocouple; (B) sample
strip clamped for measurement; (C) upper clamp
assembly swivelled horizontally for loading sample.
2 Eye & Contact Lens
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2017
Copyright
Contact Lens Association of Opthalmologists, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Eye & Contact Lens
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2017
can be soft with low modulus of elasticity but tough with high
elongation-at-break and vice versa.
The purpose of this study was to introduce a purpose-built
instrument for the reliable measurement of mechanical properties
of hydrogel and silicone hydrogel contact lens materials. In
addition to the Young modulus, parameters for SR and toughness
were also determined. All commonly available soft contact lens
materials were measured, and a comprehensive table with compa-
rable results of mechanical properties is presented. The relation-
ships between modulus versus water content and modulus versus
toughness are also examined.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Instrumentation and Analysis Software
One commercial instrument that was favored for the measure-
ment of soft contact lens modulus, the Vitrodyne 200 (Liveco
Biomechanical Instruments, Burlington, VT) is no longer available.
As it was, this instrument had some limitations in measurement
range and resolution. To overcome these limitations, we developed
a dedicated instrument to measure the mechanical properties of soft
contact lens materials (Figs. 1A, B). The MicroTensometer is capa-
ble of measuring mechanical properties in both tensile and com-
pression modes. An earlier version of this instrument was used to
measure a range of intraocular lens materials in a compression
mode and concluded that the measurements were repeatable
between the three samples for any of the measurement methods.16
Modulus measurements are performed by obtaining the SS curve
of a material under compression or tension and fitting a straight line
over a selected strain range. The strain is generated by a linear
actuator. The stress is obtained using an analytical balance. A
Perspex container filled with phosphate buffered saline (PBS) is
placed on the balance (X1203S, Mettler Toledo, Switzerland) that
has a resolution of 1 mg. An electromagnetic coil is integrated into
 Eye & Contact Lens
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2017
the bottom of the container. When activated, it firmly secures the
lower part of the sample holding clamp to the container. The upper
part of the clamp is attached to the motorized linear actuator (M-
227.50, Physik Instrumente). The C-863 DC-Servo-Motor Con-
troller Board (Physik Instrumente) is used to interface the motor
with the computer, whereas the balance is connected through an RS
232 serial interface. Custom-written software controls the motor
motions and acquires the readings from the balance at a frequency
of 10 Hz. The container is fitted with a pair of heating coils and
a thermocouple, which provides the option to perform measure-
ments at room temperature or with PBS warmed to eye temperature
of 35°C.
For convenient loading of the sample, the bottom clamp can be
secured to the upper clamp and the entire assembly swivelled
horizontally (Fig. 1C). A spacer block of 6-mm length ensures that
the initial, unstretched sample length is known and consistent. By
replacing the clamps with parallel plates, this instrument can also
perform measurements in compression mode.
Customized software using LabWindows/CVI Developer Suite
(ver. 12.0, National Instruments, Texas, TX) was developed to
operate the instrument in different modes to measure various
characteristics of mechanical properties.
The four different modes of operation are as follows:
(1) Stress strain: This mode calculates the Young Modulus of
Elasticity:
stress ðsÞ
E5 · 100%
strain ðeÞ
where stress is defined as the restoring force per unit area required
to change the length in units of MPa, and strain is defined as the
change in the length of the sample relative to the initial length of
the sample in units %.
The sample is stretched and subsequently released, with the
weight readings continuously recorded and plotted over the
corresponding motor positions. The sample can be measured in
both tensile and compression testing modes.
(2) Stress relaxation: A predetermined strain is applied quickly
to the sample and the gradual decrease in stress necessary to
maintain that strain is recorded as a function of time. An
exponential curve is fitted to calculate the time, amplitude,
and exponential decay constants using the following
equation:
 
x the center, using a Nikon Profile Projector (V12) and a Rehder ET-
stress 5 a½0 · exp 2 þ a½1;
a½2
where a½0¼amplitude constant, a½1 ¼decay constant, and
a½2¼time constant.
The time constant represents the speed with which the stress
inside the material reaches a steady state after forced deformation,
whereas the amplitude constant represents the stress difference
within the material between the initial and the steady-state after
deformation.
The sample can be measured in both tensile and compression
testing modes.

2017 Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists
Copyright
Contact Lens Association of Opthalmologists, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Mechanical Properties of Soft Contact Lens Materials
(3) Creep (CR): A predetermined constant stress is applied
quickly to the sample, and the increase in strain is recorded
as a function of time. An exponential curve was fitted to
calculate the time, amplitude, and exponential decay con-
stants using the following equation:
 
x
strain 5 a½0 · exp 2 þ a½1;
a½2
where a½0¼amplitude constant, a½1 ¼decay constant, and
a½2¼time constant.
The time constant represents the speed with which the strain
inside the material reaches a steady state after forced deformation,
whereas the amplitude constant represents the strain difference
within the material between the initial and the steady-state after
deformation. Because CR effectively measures the same material
property as SR, only SR was measured in this study.
The sample can be measured in both tensile and compression
testing modes.
(4) Toughness (TGH): The sample is elongated until it breaks.
The area under an SS curve is called the toughness that
measures how much energy a sample can absorb before it
breaks. Toughness is measured only in tensile testing mode.
Lens information and measurement setting parameters are entered
into customized software to select and control the measurement and to
facilitate the recording of the raw data in text files. Separate analysis
software was developed to analyze the data, such as calculating
Young modulus and time constants. For the purpose of this study, all
measurement results reperformed in tensile testing mode.
Contact Lenses
Eighteen types of commercially available single vision soft contact
lenses, seven hydrogel and 11 silicone hydrogel lenses, from the four
leading manufacturers were measured in prescription powers of
21.00 D, where the front and back surfaces of the lens are parallel
(Table 1). Five lenses of each type were prepared and measured.
Measurements
All lenses were removed from their blister packs and soaked in
standard PBS solution (ISO 18369-417) for at least 24 hr before
measuring. Each lens was flattened on a sheet of plastic and sliced
into a rectangular strip sample containing the center of the lens,
using two parallel blades separated by a 3-mm wide spacer block.
The width and thickness of each sample strip were measured at
three different locations—center, 2 mm up and 2 mm down from
3 electronic thickness gauge (Rehder Development), respectively.
The averages of these values were used to calculate the cross-
sectional area. The total lengths of the samples were approximately
equal to the corresponding lens diameters. However, only the area
within the optic zone, generally 8 mm in diameter, was of uniform
thickness. When loading the sample, the distance between the top
and bottom clamp was set to 6 mm. This ensured consistent cross-
section and initial length of all samples. After clamping the sample,
the actuator assembly was swivelled back into the vertical position
and the motor activated to lower the sample into the PBS. As the
plate of the bottom clamp touches the bottom of the container, the
3
 E. Kim et al. Eye & Contact Lens
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2017

TABLE 1. List of Commercially Available Soft Single Vision Contact Lenses Used in this Study
Base
Brand Manufacturer Material/Dk Curve (mm) Dia (mm) Water Content Modality

Biotrue ONEday Bausch & Lomb, USA (Hydrogel) nesofilcon A/42 8.6 14.2 78% Daily
Dailies AquaComfort Plus ALCON, USA (Hydrogel) nelfilcon A/26 8.7 14.0 69% Daily
Proclear Cooper Vision, USA (Hydrogel) omafilcon B/27 8.6 14.4 62% Monthly
Proclear 1-Day Cooper Vision, USA (Hydrogel) omafilcon A/21 8.7 14.2 60% Daily
SofLens Daily Bausch & Lomb, USA (Hydrogel) hilafilcon B/22 8.6 14.2 59% Daily
Acuvue 2 Vistakon, Johnson & Johnson, USA (Hydrogel) etafilcon A/28 8.3 14.0 58% Bi-weekly
Acuvue Moist 1-Day Vistakon, Johnson & Johnson, USA (Hydrogel) etafilcon A/21 8.5 14.3 58% Daily
Clariti 1-Day Cooper Vision, USA (Silicone hydrogel) omofilcon A/60 8.6 14.1 56% Daily
Acuvue TrueEye 1-Day Vistakon, Johnson & Johnson, USA (Silicone hydrogel) narafilcon A/100 8.5 14.2 46% Daily
MyDay Cooper Vision, USA (Silicone hydrogel) stenfilcon A/180 8.4 14.2 54% Daily
Biofinity Cooper Vision, USA (Silicone hydrogel) comfilcon A/128 8.6 14.0 48% Monthly
Avaira Cooper Vision, USA (Silicone hydrogel) enfilcon A/100 8.5 14.2 46% Bi-weekly
PremiO Menicon (Silicon hydrogel) asmofilconA/129 8.6 14.0 40% Bi-weekly
Acuvue Oasys Vistakon, Johnson & Johnson, USA (Silicone hydrogel) senofilcon A/103 8.8 14.3 38% Bi-weekly
PureVision2 Bausch & Lomb, USA (Silicone hydrogel) balafilcon A/91 8.6 14.0 36% Monthly
Dailies Total1 ALCON, USA (Silicone hydrogel) delefilcon A/140 8.5 14.1 Gradient 33% Daily
to$80%
Air Optix Aqua ALCON, USA (Silicone hydrogel) lotrafilcon B/110 8.6 14.2 33% Monthly
Air Optix Night & Day Aqua ALCON, USA (Silicone hydrogel) lotrafilcon A/140 8.6 13.8 24% Monthly

balance detects an increase in load and the motor is stopped.
The spacer block is removed, the side clamps, holding the bot-
tom clamp, were opened, the initial load is recorded, and the
instrument is ready to commence the measurements. The sam-
ples were prestretched 1% of the sample length and manually
adjusted the motor start position to avoid the toe region of the
measurements.
To compensate for the rise and fall of the liquid level in the
container during the measurements due to the varying immersion
depth of the upper clamp assembly, the corresponding balance
readings without a sample were recorded and subsequently used to
compensate for this measurement error.
For repeatability testing, three lens types were selected—Biotrue
ONEday, Air Optix Night & Day Aqua and SofLens Daily; one
sample from each type was independently measured in an SS mode
five times by one operator. The coefficient of repeatability (COR)
was calculated using 1.96 · SD between the five measurements.
For mechanical testing, five lenses from each lens type were
used and measured SS, SR, and TGH with the following settings:
(1) For SS: Three-dependent repeats (no unloading of samples
between repeats) with the following setting—pull speed 0.2
mm/sec and strain of 10% of length. The modulus was calcu-
lated by fitting a straight line through data points between 4%
to 8% strain for the stretch and release cycles. The three repeat
results were averaged to obtain the modulus for each sample.
(2) For SR: One repeat with the following setting—pull speed
0.75 mm/sec, strain 15% of length, and observed relaxation
time of 60 sec.
(3) For TGH: One repeat with pull speed of 0.2 mm/sec and
stopping when sample breaks. The area under the SS curve
up to the breakpoint was calculated as toughness in units of
MPa.
The results from these three measurement types were examined
to determine whether there is any significant correlation between
the three material properties.
All measurements were performed at temperature of 35°C. All
lens strips were pre-examined for any accidental damage or tears
during the sample preparation.
Statistical Analysis
The relationship between stretch and release moduli, modulus
and water content, and modulus and toughness was assessed using
the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). A P value less than 0.05 was
considered statistically significant. All the moduli are calculated
from the SS measurements. To compare the differences between
the measured and nominal manufacturer values, a paired t test (two
tailed) was used on the moduli data. All analyses were performed
using GraphPad Prism 5.
RESULTS
Variability of the measured sample width within each sample
was generally less than 60.02 mm with an average width of
3.25 mm between all the samples. The measured thickness was
proportionally more variable within samples because of the
21.00 D power of all the investigated lenses. On average, samples
measured 3-mm thinner in the center compared with the 2-mm off-
center measurements. Measured center thickness values ranged
from 58 mm to 136 mm.
Figure 2A shows a typical example of the raw data acquisition in
the SS mode of operation. Motor position and balance readings of the
three repeated stretch-release cycles are recorded and plotted in real
time. These data are subsequently analyzed to obtain the SS curves
and the slopes of the averaged data points between 4% and 8% strain
for the stretch and release sections (Fig. 2B). The steeper the slope,
the stiffer or higher the modulus. The R2 value of the linear fit was
0.9972 on average for all samples demonstrating good linearity.
The CORs calculated for the three lens types selected were 0.02
MPa for Biotrue ONEday and SofLens Daily and 0.08 MPa for Air
Optix Night & Day Aqua with moduli of 0.53, 0.37, and 1.38 MPa,
respectively.
For most of the lenses, the measured stretch moduli were
approximately 10% lower compared with the corresponding
release modulus (Fig. 3). The stretch and release moduli statisti-
cally correlated well with Pearson correlation coefficient (r) of
0.985 (P value,0.000). Because of this high correlation, only
the stretch modulus, which is the typical measurement reported
in contact lens literature, will be included in the further analysis.

4 Eye & Contact Lens
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2017

Copyright
Contact Lens Association of Opthalmologists, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Eye & Contact Lens
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2017
then divided by the initial length of the sample multiplied by 100%. SS, stress-strain.
The measured moduli for silicone hydrogel materials were gener-
ally higher compared with the hydrogels, except for the Dailies
AquaComfort Plus lens type.
The moduli measured in this study and values reported pre-
viously in the literature, including the nominal values as published
by the manufacturers, are plotted in Figure 4. Comparing the
nominal data with moduli measured in this study, the maximum
difference was 0.28 MPa, although statistically insignificant (P-
value¼0.291). The nominal values for Dailies AquaComfort Plus
and SofLens Daily were not available.
The relationship between modulus and water content is
shown in Figure 5 for both measured and nominal moduli. As
the water content increases, the modulus tended to decrease for
silicone hydrogel lenses with Pearson correlation coefficient (r)
of 20.750 and statistically significant (P value¼0.008) for mea-
sured moduli. For hydrogel lenses, the reverse trend was
observed with Pearson correlation coefficient (r) of 0.553,
although this was not statistically significant (P value¼0.198)
for measured moduli.
An example of the data generated in the SR mode is illustrated in
Figure 6. From the acquired raw distance and weight data, the
decay in stress following the applied step elongation is extracted
over the 60 sec. The exponential curve fitted over the decay in
stress showed a consistent time constant of approximately 10 sec
for most of the lens types measured in this study. However, the
amplitude constant varied from 2.84% for the SofLens Daily lens
FIG. 3. The modulus measured for all lens types. The error bars represent SDs between five lenses of
each lens types.

2017 Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists
Copyright
Contact Lens Association of Opthalmologists, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Mechanical Properties of Soft Contact Lens Materials
FIG. 2. (A) Raw data plot showing
weight and distance (extension of the
linear motor) readings for a lens mea-
sured in an SS mode; (B) Analyzed data
plotted as stress-strain curves with the
three individual cycles and the average
for stretch and release moduli. Stress is
calculated using the raw weight data
multiplied by gravity, which represents
the force and then divided by the area.
Strain is calculated using the raw dis-
tance data, which represents the length
of the motor, hence determines the
change in the length of the sample and
to 22.39% for Acuvue TruEye 1-Day lens. The SR constants cal-
culated for all lens types are plotted in Figure 7.
There were no obvious trends in the relationships between the
time and amplitude constants (Fig. 8). For most lens types, the time
constant was measured at approximately 10 seconds, whereas the
calculated amplitude constants were more variable between lens
types.
The toughness—area under the curve at breakpoint—was calcu-
lated for all lens types (Fig. 9). No significant correlation was
found between toughness and modulus with Pearson’ correlation
coefficient (r) of 0.310 (P-value¼0.211).
DISCUSSION
In this study, a purpose-built MicroTensometer instrument was
introduced, and tensile results presented from testing most of the
commonly prescribed soft contact lens materials. In this current
study, applications for different tensile mode measurement meth-
ods that characterize the mechanical properties of soft contact lens
materials are presented. In addition to the customarily reported
modulus of elasticity parameter, material toughness and the
dynamic property of SR were also investigated.
As there are no standard lens material samples available and
there is no prescribed or standardized measurement method,
validation of absolute accuracy is difficult to achieve. The two
key measurement parameters of force and elongation are obtained
5
 E. Kim et al. Eye & Contact Lens
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2017

FIG. 4. The nominal modulus values plotted against measured and previously reported literature
values of modulus; Young et al.,9 Horst et al.10

using commercial equipment with specified accuracy of 60.8 mg
and 60.1 mm, respectively. The measurement of the cross-
sectional area of the samples was performed with calibrated
equipment with better than 62 mm accuracy. Other error con-
tributing factors like the possible slippage of the sample within
the clamps, introduction of small defects on the sample, or the
effects of working with a nonflat sample are more difficult to
quantify. Although the presented results are similar to previ-
ously published data, this is only an indirect confirmation of
accuracy as the other methodologies used would have faced
similar problems in validating absolute accuracy of their results.
The COR of the instrument for the modulus measurement was
determined using three types of lens materials with low (24%),
medium (59%), and high (78%) water content. Regardless of its
water content, all three lens types had a COR,0.1 MPa between
five repeated measurements, demonstrating high repeatability.
In comparison, Young et al.12 using the Instron 3,343 tensiom-
eter (Instron, Norwood, USA) reported the mean differences
between two measurements of ,0.1 MPa for eight of nine ma-
terials measured. The COR ranged from 60.04 MPa with galy-
filcon A to 0.30 MPa with lotrafilcon A. Tranoudis et al.1 used
a similar instrument, the Instron 1,122 Universal Testing Instru-
ment (Instron Ltd, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom), to test
the precision of their measurement technique and reported
an SD of 2.07 kg/cm2, which equates to 0.203 MPa, between
15 samples. The COR calculated for an SD of 0.203 MPa is

FIG. 5. The relationship between measured and nominal modulus against nominal water content.
Dailies Total1 lens plotted against nominal core water content.

6 Eye & Contact Lens
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2017

Copyright
Contact Lens Association of Opthalmologists, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Eye & Contact Lens
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2017
0.40 MPa, which is more than four times higher than the COR
reported in the current study.
The modulus of elasticity was calculated for the stretch and
release cycles. The stretch modulus measured slightly lower
compared with the release modulus for most of the lens types
but were strongly correlated. These slight differences in the two
moduli can be explained by the hysteresis effect within the material
as well as within the instrument.18,19 The reversal of the stretch
movement does not immediately lead to a reduction in stress. The
range selection of 4% to 8% strain for the linear curve fit was based
on the observation that most materials showed good linear behavior
over this range. In addition, we estimate that this is also the defor-
mation range a lens might experience while fitted and moving on
the eye.
A few studies have reported measurement results of contact lens
modulus of elasticity. As there is no standardized method for
measuring the modulus of soft contact lens materials, researchers
have defined and implemented their own methods. Differences in
sample preparation methods, measurement conditions and equip-
ment used, can lead to variations in results. Tranoudis et al.1 used
the Instron 1,122 Universal Testing Instrument to measure tensile
properties of eight hydrogel lens materials, including at least one
sample from each of the four FDA-classified groups. The lens
samples were soaked in saline; however, the measurements were
conducted in air at room temperature. This is different to Young
et al.,10 who used an Instron 3,343 tensiometer with lens samples
FIG. 7. The three SR constants calculated using exponential curve fitted on raw data. The error bars
represent SDs between five lenses of each lens type. For Dailies AquaComfort Plus n¼4. SR, stress
relaxation.

2017 Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists
Copyright
Contact Lens Association of Opthalmologists, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Mechanical Properties of Soft Contact Lens Materials
FIG. 6. (A) Raw data plot of “SR”
measurement in weight and distance
(extension of the linear motor); (B)
analyzed data, showing decay of stress
over time. SR, stress relaxation.
immersed in temperature-controlled saline bath to measure soft
contact lens modulus of elasticity. It has been demonstrated that
modulus can be sensitive to changes in temperature, such as room
temperature compared with eye temperature.10 The difference
between Young results and this study ranged from 0.00 MPa to
0.45 MPa for the nine common lenses measured. Eight lens types
were within 0.25 MPa with only the Air Optix Night & Day Aqua
lens falling outside that range. A similarly large difference of 0.4
MPa for Air Optix Night & Day Aqua lens was found when com-
paring this study with data from Horst et al.11 Horst et al. used the
BioTester biaxial test system (CellScale Biomaterials Testing,
Waterloo, Canada), a novel method for measuring the modulus
of silicone hydrogel materials, which uses BioRakes (BT-305-10)
to clamp the samples. This system enabled the lens sample strips to
be kept immersed in a temperature-controlled saline bath. Compar-
ing the results from the four common lens types measured to our
results, modulus differences ranged from 0.02 to 0.41 MPa for
saline solution at 37°C. Most contact lens manufacturers publish
modulus data for their materials. However, no information is pro-
vided by the manufacturers as to how the measurements were
performed and how moduli of elasticity were calculated. Differ-
ence in moduli compared with this study ranged from 0.01 MPa to
0.28 MPa.
There is a general correlation between the three material
properties of modulus, water content, and oxygen permeability.20
With conventional hydrogels, the oxygen permeability increases
7
 E. Kim et al.
FIG. 8. The relationship between time
and amplitude constants of stress relaxa-
tion measurement.
and the modulus decreases with the water content.21 The introduc-
tion of silicone hydrogel materials some 16 years ago inverted the
relationship between water content and oxygen permeability, as the
oxygen is primarily transported through the lens by the silicone,
not the water. The first-generation silicone hydrogel materials tar-
geted maximum oxygen permeability, thus had low water content
and were consequently stiff. This caused few undesired clinical
effects.2–5 To address these issues, the water content of the second-
and third-generation silicone hydrogel materials has been
increased, leading to reduced moduli in conjunction with other
structural changes within the chemistry, while still maintaining
sufficient oxygen permeability for daily wear.21,22 The second sil-
icone hydrogel lens on the market, the Air Optix Night & Day
Aqua, targeted high oxygen permeability with a Dk of 175 through
a low water content of 24% and had the highest modulus of elas-
ticity of 1.44 MPa as reported in this study. The more recently
released silicone hydrogel lenses Avaira and MyDay measured
almost three times softer with water contents of 46% and 54%,
respectively. The expected negative correlation between water con-
tent and modulus was not evident for the seven hydrogel materials
FIG. 9. The relationship between stretch
modulus with toughness. All values are
average n¼5 for each lens types, except
for Dailies AquaComfort Plus where n¼4.
8 Eye & Contact Lens
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2017
Copyright
Contact Lens Association of Opthalmologists, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Eye & Contact Lens
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2017
measured. This is likely due to the absence of low water content
materials in our selection of samples. The lowest water content
materials measured were the Acuvue 2 and Acuvue 1-Day Moist
lenses with 58% EWC and 0.45 MPa and 0.38 MPa moduli,
respectively. A second factor contributing to this anomaly is the
uncharacteristically stiff material of the Dailies AquaComfort Plus
lens. This may be due to the unique manufacturing process that
does not involve disposable moulds or an extraction process, or the
polyvinyl alcohol–based hydrogel, which could have adjusted to
high tensil strength.23 The daily disposable Dailies Total1 silicone
hydrogel lens is the first water gradient silicone hydrogel contact
lens on the market. It is claimed to have a novel structure with
a transition from core water content of 33% to surface water
content in excess of 80% at the interface with the tear film.24 With
no further information provided on the proportional thickness or
volume of surface and core, this material is difficult to categorize
for its water content. The modulus result suggests that the average
water content is approximately 45%–50%.
The factors influencing the contact lens–related comfort of the
eye include mechanical interaction of the lens with the eye, the
 Eye & Contact Lens
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2017
ocular physiology, and the wearing characteristics.25 There are
conflicting findings reported on the comfort of silicone hydrogel
lenses compared with the hydrogel lenses. In a study reported by
Young et al.,26 496 hydrogel soft lens wearers were refitted into the
second-generation silicone hydrogel lenses for daily wear and
found that comfort improved significantly with these silicone hy-
drogel lenses in various challenging environments. Dumbleton et al.27
also reported that the use of silicone hydrogel lenses resulted in
a decrease in symptoms of dryness and discomfort over hydrogel
lenses. Cheung et al.,28 however, concluded that there is no difference
in any aspect of contact lens comfort comparing hydrogels to silicone
hydrogels. Mechanical properties are only one aspect of material
characteristics that can influence on-eye comfort; thus, no conclusions
can be drawn on which material would be most acceptable to the eye
based on those properties alone.
Although modulus of elasticity is the most commonly measured
mechanical property, other properties such as the SR and toughness
were also measured in this study. The SR parameters describe the
dynamic behavior of the material. Both the time and amplitude
parameters are important factors that contribute to lens fit and
movement on the eye.29 The exponential curve fitted over the
decay in stress showed a consistent time constant of approximately
10 sec for most of the lens types measured in this study. However,
the amplitude constant varied from 2.84% for the SofLens Daily
lens to 22.39% for Acuvue TrueEye 1-Day lens.
The toughness modulus, which was calculated as the area under
the stress strain curve up to the breakpoint, is a measure of how
much energy is absorbed by the sample before it breaks. A lens
material can be strong but not necessarily be tough—such a sample
can be described as being brittle. An example of this characteristic
is the Dailies AquaComfort Plus lens type, where high stress is
required to break the sample but small deformation is produced
before failure. The brittle behavior of the Dailies AquaComfort
Plus was also observed while measuring the lenses. Three of the
five lenses broke while performing SS measurements and had to be
replaced. Tranoudis et al.1 have also observed that polymer
samples can be strong with high modulus but brittle with low
elongation-at-break.
In conclusion, using the purpose-built instrument, the mechan-
ical properties, such as the Young modulus as well as toughness
and SR, of soft contact lenses, were reliably measured. All the most
commonly prescribed soft contact lens materials were presented,
and modulus data were compared against published data from
manufacturers and other research groups. Agreement was generally
good, with only a few exceptions exceeding 15% deviation. The
more recently released silicone hydrogel lens types have reduced
modulus, approaching that of medium or high water content
hydrogel materials.
REFERENCES
1. Tranoudis I, Efron N. Tensile properties of soft contact lens materials. Cont
Lens Anterior Eye 2004;27:177–191.
2. Meng CL, Thao NY. Mechanical complications induced by silicone hydro-
gel contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2013;39:115–124.

2017 Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists
Copyright
Contact Lens Association of Opthalmologists, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats
Mechanical Properties of Soft Contact Lens Materials
3. Graham AD, Truong TN, Lin MC. Conjunctival epithelial flap in continu-
ous contact lens wear. Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:e324–e331.
4. Alba-Bueno F, Beltran-Masgoret À, Sanjuan C, et al. Corneal shape
changes induced by first and second generation silicone hydrogel contact
lenses in daily wear. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2009;32:88–92.
5. Maissa C, Guillon M, Garofalo RJ. Contact lens-induced circumlimbal
staining in silicone hydrogel contact lenses worn on a daily wear basis.
Eye Contact Lens 2012;38:16–26.
6. Dumbleton K. Noninflammatory silicone hydrogel contact lens complica-
tions. Eye Contact Lens 2003;29:S186–S189.
7. French K. Contact lens material properties. Part 2—mechanical behaviour
and modulus. Optician 2005;230:29–34.
8. French K, Jones L. A decade with silicone hydrogels: Part 2. Optom Today
2008;48:38–42.
9. Tighe BJ. A decade of silicone hydrogel development: Surface properties,
mechanical properties, and ocular compatibility. Eye Contact Lens 2013;39:4–12.
10. Young G, Garofalo R, Peters S, et al. The effect of temperature on
soft contact lens modulus and diameter. Eye Contact Lens 2011;37:
337–341.
11. Horst CR, Brodland B, Jones LW, et al. Measuring the modulus of silicone
hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2012;89:1468–1476.
12. Young G, Garofalo R, Harmer O, et al. The effect of soft contact lens care
products on lens modulus. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2010;33:210–214.
13. Lee SJ, Bourne GR, Chen X, et al. Mechanical characterization of contact
lenses by microindentation: Constant velocity and relaxation testing. Acta
Biomater 2008;4:1560–1568.
14. Gonzalez-Meijome J, Almeida J, Parafita M. Analysis of surface mechanical
properties of unworn and worn silicone hydrogel contact lenses using nano-
indentation with AFM. Microsc Sci Technol Appl Education 2010;1:554–559.
15. Caglayan MO. Atomic force microscopy as a characterization tool for con-
tact lenses: Indentation tests and grain analysis. Int J Polymeric Mater Poly-
meric Biomater 2014;63:680–684.
16. Ehrmann K, Kim E, Parel J-M. Mechanical Properties of Intra-Ocular
Lenses. Proceeding SPIE 6844, Ophthalmic Technologies XVIII, 68440O
2008; 6844: 68440O-68440O-68411.
17. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 18369-4:2006 Ophthal-
mic Optics—Contact Lenses—Part 4: Physiochemical Properties of Contact
Lens Materials, 2006.
18. Li C, Ahearne M, Liu KK. Micromechanical characterization of hydrogel-
based contact lens. Int J Mod Phys B 2010;24:117–127.
19. Zhao X. Multi-scale multi-mechanism design of tough hydrogels: Building
dissipation into stretchy networks. Soft Matter 2014;10:672–687.
20. Jones L, Subbaraman L, Rogers R, et al. Surface treatment, wetting and
modulus of silicone hydrogels. Optician 2006;232:28–34.
21. Loretta SF. Looking at silicone hydrogels across generations. Optometric
Management 2008;May.
22. Iskeleli G, Karakoc Y, Ozkok A, et al. Comparison of the effects of first and
second generation silicone hydrogel contact lens wear on tear film osmo-
larity. Int J Ophthalmol 2013;6:666–670.
23. Hyon S-H, Cha W-I, Ikada Y, et al. Poly(vinyl alcohol) hydrogels as soft
contact lens material. J Biomater Sci Polym Edition 1994;5:397–406.
24. Pruitt J, Bauman E. The development of dailies total1 water gradient contact
lenses. Contact Lens Spectr 2013;28:40–44.
25. Guillon M. Are silicone hydrogel contact lenses more comfortable than
hydrogel contact lenses? Eye Contact Lens 2013;39:86–92.
26. Young G, Riley CM, Chalmers RL, et al. Hydrogel lens comfort in chal-
lenging environments and the effect of refitting with silicone hydrogel
lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:302–308.
27. Dumbleton KA, Woods CA, Jones LW, et al. Comfort and adaptation to
silicone hydrogel lenses for daily wear. Eye Contact Lens 2008;34:215–223.
28. Cheung SW, Cho P, Chan B, et al. A comparative study of biweekly dispos-
able contact lenses: Silicone hydrogel versus hydrogel. Clin Exp Optom
2007;90:124–131.
29. Hosaka S, Yamada A, Tanzawa H. Mechanical properties of the soft contact
lens of poly (methyl methacrylate-N-vinylpyrrolidone). J Biomed Mater Res
1980;14:557–566.
9