JPS60159721A - Cleaner for contact lens - Google Patents

Abstract

PURPOSE:To obtain a cleaner for contact lenses capable of effectively removing stuck stains without damaging the lenses by adding an aggregate of cellulose crystallite as an essential component. CONSTITUTION:An aggregate of cellulose crystallite is added by about 0.5- 3W/V% as an essential component, and an abrasive material of about 0.5-50mum grain size such as nylon powder or silicon dioxide powder is preferably added by about 0.5-7W/V% to obtain the desired cleaner for contact lenses. Natural carbohydrate fiber, regenerated cellulose or the like is hydrolyzed or decomposed by oxidation, and the resulting cellulose with a high degree of crystallinity is finely divided by mechanical grinding in the presence of water. The product is then dried after adding a water soluble polymer such as CMC as required to obtain said aggregate of cellulose crystallite.

Description

[Detailed Description of the Invention] [Field of Industrial Application] The present invention provides various types of contact lenses such as hard contact lenses, soft contact lenses, and silicone resin contact lenses that have been surface-treated to improve waterfowl resistance. The present invention relates to a contact lens cleaner that can effectively clean contact lenses.

[Prior art and problems]

Currently, cleaning liquids containing cleaning agents such as surfactants are used to remove dirt adhering to contact lenses.

However, since the cleaning effect is low with just a surfactant, cleaners have been proposed that contain an abrasive such as silicon dioxide in addition to the surfactant.

Although the silicon dioxide-containing cleaner proposed in this proposal has excellent cleaning effects because it contains silicon dioxide, it is difficult to clean by applying the cleaner to your fingertips and rubbing the contact lenses with a pair of scissors. When exposed, silicon dioxide particles not only remove dirt from the surface of the contact lens, but also the contact lens itself (changes in lens shape such as base curve).
However, the use of wound care ICs has the fatal disadvantage of reducing the optical properties of contact lenses, and in severe cases, making them unusable as contact lenses at all.

In addition to the disadvantages that impair the optical properties of contact lenses, if the material of the contact lens has poor hydrogen permeability, there may be problems in order to improve the wearability of contact lenses made of such materials. In many cases, a surface treatment is applied to improve water damming properties, and if a silicon dioxide-containing cleaner is used with such surface-treated contact lenses, the silicon dioxide particles may scrape off the surface treatment layer. Another drawback is that the hydrophilic contact angle of contact lenses increases significantly, which significantly reduces the feeling of wearing them.

Also, after removing dirt from contact lenses with a cleaner, washing with water is required to completely remove the cleaner ingredients on the contact lens surface, but even with water washing, the cleaner ingredients cannot be easily washed away (1). There are also drawbacks such as this, and its handling is not that easy.

[Process of measures to address problems]

The inventors of the present invention have noted that the proposed cleaner has a major drawback because it contains silicon dioxide.
We developed a cleaner containing 0.5 to 7 W/V% of an organic abrasive such as μm polystyrene or nylon, and used the cleaner containing nylon powder to remove stains from contact lenses in the same manner as in the previous case. .

This nylon powder-containing cleaner rarely scraped or damaged the surface layer of contact lenses, and was far superior to silicon dioxide-containing cleaners.

However, although this cleaner is vastly superior to conventional cleaners, it did not satisfy the inventor, who has lofty ideals and goals. In other words, although there are no major drawbacks to cleaners containing nylon powder, for example, if a cleaner containing nylon powder is left in a natural state, the nylon powder will precipitate, and the cleaner must be shaken thoroughly to mix and disperse before use. In addition, it was not possible to be satisfied with the product because it was unclear what general consumers would think if they saw a cleaner with precipitates, and it was possible that it would unnecessarily make them feel uneasy, for example.

Therefore, in order to solve such problems, which may be trivial but reduce the product value, for example, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), hydroxyethyl cellulose (MB), etc.
C), /Cellulose (MC), polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyvinylpyrrolidone (pvp)
, hydroxyglobil methylcellulose (HPMC)
The problem of precipitation of nylon powder was solved by increasing the viscosity of the cleaner by adding water-soluble polymers such as or increasing the amount of surfactant.
A new problem has arisen. In other words, when the viscosity of the cleaner becomes high, it is difficult to take the cleaner out from the nozzle opening of the container during use, and the nozzle opening often gets blocked.Furthermore, after cleaning contact lenses with the cleaner, it is difficult to remove the cleaner ingredients. There is a problem in that it is relatively troublesome to remove by washing with water.

[Disclosure of the invention]

As a result of various studies, the present inventor has discovered that by adding cellulose crystallite aggregates to a contact lens cleaner, the problem can be avoided when abrasives such as dioxide sand or nylon powder are not used. or silicon dioxide,
Even when inorganic abrasives such as alumina and kaolin or organic abrasives such as polystyrene and nylon are added, cellulose crystallite aggregates work effectively and are almost ideal. We have discovered that it can be used as a contact lens cleaner.

The cellulose crystallite aggregate referred to in the present invention is IND.
USTRIAL AND ENGINEIILING
CHEMISTRY (Vo42, Oboro 3.O, A, BAT listed on pages 502-507 of 1950)
As defined in Mr. TI8TA's paper, for example, natural coal
Crystallization obtained by hydrolyzing or oxidatively decomposing fibers, purified products thereof, or regenerated cellulose with acids or alkalis, using a combination of oxidation and hydrolysis, or decomposing them with enzymes. High-strength cellulose is made into a fine state by mechanical grinding in the presence of water, and then directly dried, or a water-soluble polymeric substance containing 3 to 18 grams of solids is added to the dispersion. For example, it is obtained by specially adding, dissolving and mixing vegetable gums such as carboxymethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, sodium alginate, and other gum arabic, and then drying. (registered trademark).

Since this cellulose crystallite aggregate has a soft abrasive action, it is effective to some extent in removing stains from contact lenses even without the addition of abrasives such as silicon dioxide. Moreover, since the abrasive action is soft, it does not damage the contact lens during cleaning, that is, it does not reduce the optical properties of the contact lens or reduce its fishability.

Furthermore, even if an abrasive agent such as silicon dioxide or nylon powder is added to the cleaner to further enhance the cleaning effect, for example, in the case of an abrasive agent such as silicon dioxide, cellulose crystallite aggregates will clathrate the silicon dioxide. In the case of an abrasive such as nylon powder, it acts to improve the dispersibility of nylon powder, which can reduce problems such as precipitation of nylon powder. It will eliminate the As a result, even if abrasives such as silicon dioxide or nylon powder are added to the cleaner, these abrasives will affect the optical properties of contact lenses and water! It is an ideal product that does not reduce scoldability, does not cause problems such as precipitation, and has even better cleaning effects.

In addition, after cleaning contact lenses using such a cleaner containing cellulose crystallite aggregates, when removing the cleaner components from the contact lenses by washing with water,
Cleaner components can be washed off very easily, so handling after using the cleaner is also very easy.

However, the amount of cellulose crystallite aggregate added is approximately 0.5
~3W/Vchi, particularly preferably about 0.5~1.5W/V
It is preferable that it be about 100%.

In addition, as the abrasive, as mentioned above, for example, alumina,
Inorganic materials such as silicon dioxide and kaolin or organic materials such as polystyrene and nylon may be used, but
Among these, organic polymers such as nylon powder are particularly preferred, and the particle size of the abrasive is preferably about 0.5 to 50 μm, and the amount of the abrasive added is about 0. It is preferably about .5 to 7 W/V%, particularly preferably about 3 to about 3 sW/V%.

It is also desirable that a surfactant is added to the cleaner; examples of such surfactants include nonionic surfactants with a molecular weight of 800 to 8,000;
Nonionic surfactants preferably having H, L, and B values of 12 to 16, such as polyoxyethylene lauryl ether,
Polyoxyethylene cetyl ether, polyoxyethylene oleyl ether, polyoxyethylene stearyl ether, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monostearate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monostearate,
Polyoxyethylene glyceryl monooleate, polyoxyethylene glyceryl monostearate, polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether, polyoxyethylene octylphenyl ether, etc. at a critical micelle formation concentration or higher, for example about 0.01 to uOW/V, preferably About 10 times the critical micelle formation concentration, for example about 0.2 to IW
/V% is preferably contained.

In addition, in the cleaner, for example, PVA, HEClMC,
Add additives such as CMC-Na, PEG, PVP, HPMC or Pullulan to a cleaner with a viscosity of approximately z5 to 40.
It is preferable to add CpS.

[Example 1] 1 part by weight of Avicel 591 (cellulose λ crystallite aggregate manufactured by Asahi Kasei Corporation), 0.
002 parts by weight, HECo, 3 parts by weight, and purified water, first make a mixture of substances excluding Avicel 591, and then sterilize this mixture aqueous solution by passing it through a membrane filter, for example. The mixture is sterilized by autoclave treatment, and the sterilized Avicel 591 is mixed with the sterilized mixture aqueous solution to make 100 parts by volume to obtain a contact lens cleaner.

[Example 2] Avicel 5911 parts by weight, chlorhexidine digluconate 0.002 parts by weight, HECO, 3 parts by weight, E-12
A contact lens cleaner was obtained in the same manner as in Example 1 using 0.2 parts by weight of 0.0 (polyoxyethylene lauryl ether of Kao soap ①) and purified water.

[Example 3] Contact lenses were produced in the same manner as in Example 1 using Avicel 5911 parts by weight, 3 parts by weight of 300 mesh nylon powder, 3 parts by weight of PVA, 0.002 parts by weight of chlorhexidine digluconate, and purified water. Get a cleaner.

[Example 4] HECO, 3 was substituted for 3 parts by weight of PVA in Example 3.
A contact lens cleaner is obtained in the same manner as in Example 3 using parts by weight.

[Example 5] A contact lens cleaner is obtained in the same manner as in Example 4 except that Avicel 591 is changed to o, s, and i parts.

[Example 6] Using 1.5 parts by weight of Avicel 591, 3 parts by weight of 300 mesh nylon powder, 2 parts by weight of HECO, 0.002 parts by weight of chlorhexidine digluconate) and purified water, the same procedure as in Example 1 was carried out. Contact lens cleaners are obtained in the same manner (Examples 7 to 9) In Example 6, Avicel 591 is changed to 2 parts by weight, 25 parts by weight, and 3 parts by weight, and contact lens cleaners are obtained in the same manner.

[Examples 10 to 13] In Example 4, the nylon powder was changed to 1 part by weight, 2 parts by weight, 4 parts by weight, and 5 parts by weight, and contact lens cleaners were obtained in the same manner.

[Examples 14 to 20] Further adding a nonionic surfactant to the composition of Example 4,
That is, Avicel 5911 parts by weight, 0.002 parts by weight of chlorhexidine digluconate, HECo, 3 parts by weight,
3 parts by weight of 300 mesh nylon powder, E-1
200.01 parts by weight, 0.02 parts by weight, 0.05 parts by weight, 0.1 parts by weight, 0.2 parts by weight, 0.5 parts by weight, or 1 part by weight
．． A contact lens cleaner is obtained in the same manner using 0 parts by weight and purified water.

[Comparative Example 1] A contact lens cleaner was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1 using 0 parts by weight of silicon dioxide powder, 0.002 parts by weight of chlorhexidine digluconate, 2 parts by weight of E-1200, and purified water. obtain.

[Comparative Example 2] A contact lens cleaner is obtained in the same manner as in Example 1 using 3 parts by weight of PVA, 3 parts by weight of nylon powder, 0.002 parts by weight of chlorhexidine digluconate, and purified water.

[Comparative Example 3] HECO53 was substituted for 3 parts by weight of PVA in Comparative Example 2.
A contact lens cleaner is obtained in the same manner as in Comparative Example 2 using parts by weight.

[Comparative Example 4] In Comparative Example 3, 2 parts by weight of E-1200 was further added, and a contact lens cleaner was obtained in the same manner.

[Comparative Example 5] A contact lens cleaner is obtained in the same manner as in Comparative Example 4 without adding any nylon powder.

〔performance test〕

When a scrubbing test was conducted using the contact lens cleaners obtained in Examples 1 to 20 and Comparative Examples 1 to 5, it was found that, except for the contact lens cleaner in Comparative Example 5, it was difficult to remove contaminants. Although there were differences in the degree of staining, it was possible to remove stains from all contact lenses by scrubbing the lenses a normal number of times, for example, about 30 times.

Examining in detail the degree of contaminant removal effect by the award and scrubbing test, that is, comparing the case of Example 1 and the cases of Comparative Examples 1 to 5, it is found that Example 1
The one in Comparative Example 1 is slightly inferior in pollutant removal effect, but the one in Comparative Examples 2 to 4 is just as effective in removing pollutants, and the one in Comparative Example 5 is more effective in removing pollutants. It also shows excellent contaminant removal effects.

That is, the presence of Avicel 591 in the cleaner effectively removes contaminants from contact lenses.

In addition, when comparing Example 1 and Example 2, it was found that Example 1 and Example 2 were more effective in removing contaminants because they contained a nonionic surfactant. Moreover, compared to Examples 3 to 20, these cases are more effective in removing contaminants because they contain an abrasive such as nylon powder.

Further examination of Examples 3 to 20 revealed that Example 4 had better cleaning effects than Example 3, and Examples 5 and 6 were almost the same as Example 4. However, as in Examples 7 to 9, as the content of Avicel 591 increases, the cleaning effect decreases to some extent, and in comparison between Examples 4 and 10 to 13, the amount of abrasive such as Shinylon powder decreases. The cleaning effect increases as the amount increases.

Next, when the scrubbing test was repeated using the contact lens cleaner as described above, it was found that when the contact lens cleaner according to the above example was used, there was almost no change in the weight of the contact lens. On the other hand, when the contact lens cleaner according to Comparative Examples, especially Comparative Example 1, was used, there were disadvantages such as a decrease in the weight of the contact lenses, that is, a change in the base curve. Ta.

For example, when illustrating the weight reduction of several contact lens cleaners, as shown in Fig. 1, the case of Examples 1 and 2 (the results of Examples 1 and 2 are almost the same, so the figure There was almost no weight change in the cases (indicated by middle -, -), the surface layer of the contact lens was not scraped off, and the base curve remained unchanged. 6.14
- 20 (The results obtained with these examples are almost the same, so although some weight loss is observed in the parts indicated by - and - in the figure, it is extremely small and the base curve of the contact lens There is no problem with the optical properties, but the change in the optical properties is not a problem.However, in Comparative Examples 2 to 4, as shown by Δ... in the same figure, -
The weight reduction was more than twice that of the case of ・-, and the weight of Comparative Example 1 was as shown by the ``mouth'' in the same figure.
This results in a weight reduction that is several times greater than in the case of the conventional method, which adversely affects the pace carp and causes problems with optical properties.

Next, when we examine how the water repellency (hydrophilic contact angle) of the contact lens surface changes, for example, by a scrubbing test, which is required as a characteristic of contact lens cleaners, we find that, for example, water repellency When a scrubbing test was conducted on the improved surface treated contact lenses using the contact lens cleaner of the above example, the hydrophilic contact angle did not increase significantly when the contact lens cleaner of the above example was used. On the other hand, when the contact lens cleaner according to the comparative example was used, the hydrophilic contact angle did not increase significantly, and the wearability of the contact lens decreased as the number of times the contact lens cleaner was used increased. It shows that there is.

For example, when illustrating the changes in the hydrophilic contact angle of several contact lens cleaners, as shown in Figure 2, in the case of Examples 1 and 2 (the results of Examples 1 and 2 are different) The hydrophilic contact angle (indicated by -- in the figure) only increased by about 5 degrees even after 20,000 repetitions, and in Examples 3 to 11.
The hydrophilic contact angle did not become that large even when using samples of Nos. 15 to 20 (the results from these Examples are almost the same, so they are indicated by --- in the figure), whereas Comparative Example 1 had the same results. The hydrophilic contact angle significantly increased as shown by ... in the figure, and Comparative Examples 2 to 4 showed a large increase in the hydrophilic contact angle as shown by ... in the figure. Example 1 causes a slight decrease in hydrophilicity, which causes a drawback in the wearability of contact lenses.

Also, when comparing the case where a nonionic surfactant was added and the case where no nonionic surfactant was added, that is, when comparing the case according to Example 4 and the case according to K in Examples 14 to 20, Nonionic surfactant is 0.01
It has been found that water retention on the contact lens surface is effective in maintaining hydrophilicity when the content is even %. When observed, the contact lens cleaners of Examples 18 to 20, which contained 0.2% or more of nonionic surfactant, were satisfactory in terms of maintaining hydrophilicity.

Another characteristic required of a contact lens cleaner is whether the components of the contact lens cleaner attached to the surface of the contact lens can be easily removed by washing with water after using the contact lens cleaner.

Regarding this point, after using the contact lens cleaner on each side, dip the contact lens in physiological saline at a rate of 4 seconds once, and see how many times it takes to remove the cleaner components. When tested, for example, when the contact lens cleaner of Comparative Example 1 was used, the dipping was repeated about 21 times on average. When a cleaner is used, the mirror must be repeatedly dipped an average of about 15 times, whereas in the case of the contact lens cleaner of Example 15, for example, an average of 11 dips are required. As described above, the contact lens cleaner of the present invention is extremely easy to handle after use.

[Brief explanation of drawings]

FIGS. 1 and 2 are graphs showing how the weight of a contact lens (per lens) decreases and how the hydrophilic contact angle changes due to the use of a contact lens cleaner. Agent Katsumi Utaka -2, -□ Figure 1 Figure 2 Bowl corner / Number of times of scrubbing

Claims (1)

[Claims] ■ A contact lens cleaner characterized by containing at least cellulose crystallite aggregates. (2) A contact lens cleaner according to claim 1, in which the content of cellulose crystallite aggregates is approximately 0.5 to 3 W/V%. ■ A contact lens cleaner containing at least cellulose crystallite aggregates and an abrasive. (2) In the contact lens cleaner according to claim 3, the content of cellulose crystallite aggregates is about 0.5 to 3 W/V%, and the content of abrasive is about 0.
．． 5 to 7 W/V%. (2) In the contact lens cleaner according to claim 3 or 4, the abrasive has a particle size of about 0.5 to 50 μm.