BACKGROUND: Exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) can result in several ocular ailments. We studied the UV absorption (UV-A and -B bands) in 20 lenses (11 hard resin and 9 glass) commonly available in India as uncut lenses for the purpose of prescription as well as non-prescription wear. METHODS: Using a UV-visible spectrophotometer (Thermo-Spectronic, UV-1 model, Thermo Electron Corporation, USA), the percentage transmittance was scanned between 190 and 400 nm, from which the results at 280, 320, 340, 360, 380 and 400 nm were analysed. RESULTS: At 360 nm (UV-A), 75% of the lenses studied failed to offer 95% protection as recommended by the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA). At 280 nm (UV-B), 35% of the lenses failed to offer 99% protection against UV-B. Hard resin lenses showed a higher degree of variation in protection from UV-A. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the lenses studied failed to meet the US FDA recommendations in terms of protection from UV-A. Glass lenses afforded better protection up to 320 nm compared with hard resin lenses. As the claims of lens manufacturers regarding UVR protection fall short of international standards, certification of UVR protection for different lenses should be introduced in India.
BACKGROUND: Exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) can result in several ocular ailments. We studied the UV absorption (UV-A and -B bands) in 20 lenses (11 hard resin and 9 glass) commonly available in India as uncut lenses for the purpose of prescription as well as non-prescription wear. METHODS: Using a UV-visible spectrophotometer (Thermo-Spectronic, UV-1 model, Thermo Electron Corporation, USA), the percentage transmittance was scanned between 190 and 400 nm, from which the results at 280, 320, 340, 360, 380 and 400 nm were analysed. RESULTS: At 360 nm (UV-A), 75% of the lenses studied failed to offer 95% protection as recommended by the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA). At 280 nm (UV-B), 35% of the lenses failed to offer 99% protection against UV-B. Hard resin lenses showed a higher degree of variation in protection from UV-A. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the lenses studied failed to meet the US FDA recommendations in terms of protection from UV-A. Glass lenses afforded better protection up to 320 nm compared with hard resin lenses. As the claims of lens manufacturers regarding UVR protection fall short of international standards, certification of UVR protection for different lenses should be introduced in India.