The resistance of plastic eyeglass lenses to some common chemicals

The Resistance of Plastic Eyeglass Lenses to Some Common Chemicals While the use of regular prescri~tionrlasses m a chemical laboratorv should not he acceoted as an adeouate substitute

have tested optical blanks of this material with hexane, benzene, toluene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform,rnethylene chloride, acetone, DMF, DMSO, chlorobenzene, ethanol, methanol, diethyl ether, THF, dioxane, triethn ylamine, concentrated hydrochloric, sulfuric, acetic, formic, and nitric acids, chromic acid cleaning solution. dilute hydrochloric acid 50% NaOH~waterand 50% KOWethanoI. None r.woe of these in either 15-sec or 15-min applications showed any degradation in the optically trans0 parent surface of the lens blanks. It thus appears that chemicals are not an appreciable hazard to the currently used plastic lenses. The plasticused in glasses frames, however, is another matter. This is most commonly cellulose hutyrate which is susceptible to damage by a wide variety 0 of common solsents. Surface damage of the frames is not nearly as critical as for the lenses, 1 however.

C

~

A

' Jalie, M. "The Principles ofOpthalmic Lenses." 3rd Ed.. Assoc. Dispensing Opticians, London. 1977, p 131. John E. Bartmess and Rosina M. Georgiadis Department of Chemistry Indiana University Bloom~ngton.IN 47405

John Swinford School of Optometry Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405

Volume 60

Number I

January 1983

81