| Literature DB >> 33487932 |
P M Dongre1, Vinod D Jaiswal1, Suraj Singh1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Biophysical study to investigate (a) the effects of smartphone light fluxes (SPLF) on isolated mammalian cornea and model protein (insulin), (b) to predict the possible visual interference of SPLF.Entities:
Keywords: Cornea disorganization; protein aggregation; smartphone light fluxes
Year: 2020 PMID: 33487932 PMCID: PMC7810147 DOI: 10.4103/jmp.JMP_89_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Phys ISSN: 0971-6203
Figure 1(a) Schematic diagram of the exposure unit-collimation of smartphone light fluxes and (b) noncollimation smart phone light fluxes; (c) spectral measurement of smartphone light fluxes
Figure 2(a) Fluorescence spectra (b) resonance light scattering and (c) Time resolver fluorescence of control and exposed insulin
Percentage permeation and percentage transmittance of cornea exposed to smartphone light fluxes
| SPLF type | Ascorbic acid permeation (%) | Transmittance (%) (505 nm) |
|---|---|---|
| Noncollimation beam | 77.72±11.23* | 67.96±15.88* |
| Collimation beam | 69.35±8.159*,# | 49.19±10.02*,# |
The results are expressed as mean±SD, *P<0.05 indicates the significant difference between control and exposed cornea. #P<0.05 indicates the significant difference between collimated and noncollimated exposed cornea. n=7, statistical paired t-test was used. Control was set as 100%. SD: Standard deviation, SPLF: Smartphone light fluxes
Figure 3Bright field (top row) and fluorescein stain images of cornea (bottom row): (A) control (B) exposed with noncollimated smartphone light fluxes (arrow indicates exposed intercellular spaces) (C) exposed with collimated smart phone light fluxes (arrow indicates punctate spot)
Figure 4Differential interference contrast (top row) and ESEM images of cornea (bottom row): (A) Control (B) Exposed with noncollimated smart phone light fluxes (arrow indicates exposed intercellular spaces) (C) Exposed with collimated smart phone light fluxes (arrow indicates punctate spot)