한국안광학회지 (Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society)

한국안광학회 (The Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

콘택트렌즈 재질 및 침착 단백질에 따른 균 흡착 정도와 다목적용액의 살균력 비교

Comparisons of Adherence Level of Micro-organisms According to Contact Lens Materials and Protein Deposition and Disinfection Efficacy of Multipurpose Solution

  • 성형경 (서울과학기술대학교 안경광학과) ;
  • 김소라 (서울과학기술대학교 안경광학과) ;
  • 박미정 (서울과학기술대학교 안경광학과)
  • Sung, Hyung Kyung (Dept. of Optometry, Seoul National University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Kim, So Ra (Dept. of Optometry, Seoul National University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Park, Mijung (Dept. of Optometry, Seoul National University of Science and Technology)
  • 투고 : 2015.02.02
  • 심사 : 2015.03.05
  • 발행 : 2015.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적: 콘택트렌즈 재질 및 렌즈에 침착된 단백질 종류에 따른 균의 흡착력을 비교하고 관리용품의 살균력 차이를 측정하고자 하였다. 방법: FDA 평가기준 및 방법인 Disinfection Efficacy Testing의 Part 2. Regimen Procedure For Disinfecting Regimens에 따라 균 흡착 및 관리용품의 살균력 측정실험을 실시하였다. 결과: 포도상구균을 제외한 녹농균, 세라티아균, 칸디다균은 etafilcon A 렌즈에 더 많이 흡착되었으며, 4종의 다목적용액은 칸디다균을 제외한 모든 균에서 거의 완벽한 살균력을 나타냈다. 눈물 단백질을 침착시킨 렌즈에서 세라티아를 제외한 모든 균은 알부민 침착 렌즈에서의 흡착이 많았으며, 다목적용액의 살균력은 라이소자임 침착 렌즈에 흡착된 균보다 알부민 침착 렌즈에 흡착된 균에서 높은 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 균의 종류에 따라 다목적 용액의 살균력이 달랐다. 결론: 균의 종류, 콘택트렌즈 재질, 침착된 눈물 단백질의 종류가 콘택트렌즈에 흡착되는 균의 양에 영향을 주며, 눈물 단백질의 침착은 다목적용액에 의한 살균력에 변화를 초래할 수 있음을 밝혔다. 이러한 살균력에 영향을 주는 요인에 의해 콘택트렌즈 위생상태가 달라지며 부작용 발생 여부가 영향을 받을 수 있음을 제안한다.

Purpose: The present study was aimed to compare the difference in adherence level of microorganisms according to contact lens materials and protein deposition and to evaluate disinfection efficacy of multipurpose solution. Methods: The evaluations of micro-organisms' adherence and disinfection efficacy of multi-purpose solution were conducted by employing the Part 2. Regimen Procedure for Disinfecting Regiments in the Disinfection Efficacy Testing under the "FDA Evaluation Criteria & Method". Results: Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens, Candida albicans except Staphylococcus aureus adhered more on etafilcon A lens and disinfection efficacy of total 4 products investigated was almost perfect except Candida albicans. The 3 micro-organisms except Serratia marcescens adhered more to albumin-predeposited lens. Disinfection efficacy of multi-purpose solution was higher against the micro-organisms adhered to albumin-deposited lens than against the micro-organisms adhered to the lysozyme-deposited lens. Furthermore, disinfection efficacy of multi-purpose solution was different according to types of micro-organisms. Conclusions: It was revealed that the type of micro-organisms, the lens materials and type of absorbed tear protein affected the amount of adhered micro-organisms to contact lens and that adhesion of tear protein could induce the change of disinfection efficacy of multi-purpose solution. It suggest that the hygienic condition of contact lens can vary by these factors influencing on disinfection efficacy and the occurrence of adverse effect can be affected.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Michaud L, Giasson CJ. Overwear of contact lenses: increased severity of clinical signs as a function of protein adsorption. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79(3):184-192. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200203000-00013
  2. Ma KJ, Lee KJ. Contact lens, 1st Ed. Seoul: Daehakseolim, 1995;82-322.
  3. Brennan NA, Coles MC. Deposits and symptomatology with soft contact lens wear. Int Contact Lens Clin. 2000;27(3):75-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-8967(01)00060-8
  4. Cheng L, Muller SJ, Radke CJ. Wettability of siliconehydrogel contact lenses in the presence of tear-film components. Curr Eye Res. 2004;28(2):93-108. https://doi.org/10.1076/ceyr.28.2.93.26231
  5. Nathan E. Contact lens complications, 2nd Ed. Seoul: Elsevier Korea, 2008;236-249.
  6. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry-Premarket notification(510(k)) guidance document for contact lens care products. Food and Drug Administration. 1997.
  7. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem. 1951;193(1):265-275.
  8. Giraldez MJ, Resua CG, Lira M, Oliveira ME, Magarios B, Toranzo AE et al. Contact lens hydrophobicity and roughness effects on bacterial adhesion. Optom Vis Sci. 2010; 87(6):426-431.
  9. Zhang S, Borazjani RN, Salamone JC, Ahearn DG, Crow SA, Pierce GE. In vitro deposition of lysozyme on etafilcon A and balafilcon A hydrogel contact lenses: Effects on adhesion and survival of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2005; 28(3):113-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2005.06.003
  10. Borazjani RN, Levy B, Ahearn DG. Relative primary adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens and Staphylococcus aureus to HEMA-type contact lenses and an extended wear silicone hydrogel contact lens of high oxygen permeability. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2004;27(1):3-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2003.08.001
  11. Tran VB, Fleiszig SM, Evans DJ, Radke CJ. Dynamics of flagellum and pilus mediated association of Pseudomonas aeruginosa with contact lens surfaces. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77(11):3644-3652. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02656-10
  12. Bruinsma, GM, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. Bacterial adhesion to surface hydrophilic and hydrophobic contact lenses. Biomaterials. 2001;22(24):3217-3224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00159-4
  13. Giraldez MJ, Serra C, Lira M, Real Oliveira ME, Yebra-Pimentel E. Soft contact lens surface profile by atomic force microscopy. Optom Vis Sci. 2010;87(7):475-481.
  14. Imamura Y, Chandra J, Mukherjee PK, Latif AA, Szczotka-Flynn LB, Pearlman E et al. Fusarium and Candida albicans biofilms on soft contact lenses: model development, influence of lens type, and susceptibility to lens care solutions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(1):171-182. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00387-07
  15. Subbaraman LN, Borazjani R, Zhu H, Zhao Z, Jones L, Willcox MD. Influence of protein deposition on bacterial adhesion to contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88(8):959-966. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e31821ffccb
  16. Berman ER. Biochemistry of the eye, New York: Springer, 1991;79-80.
  17. Osserman EF Canfield RE, Beychok S. Lysozyme, New York: Academic Press, 1974;169-186.
  18. Hambleton P. The sensitivity of gram-negative bacteria, recovered from aerosols, to lysozyme and other hydrolytic enzymes. J Gen Microbiol. 1970;61(2):197-204. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-61-2-197
  19. Kravchenko NA, Kagramanova KA, Kznetzow YD. Effect of salt and other factors on lysozyme activity. Biokhimiia. 1967;32(3):618-623.
  20. Chang KY, Carr CW. Studies on the struture and function of lysozyme: The effect of pH and cation concentration on lysozyme activity. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1971;229(2): 496-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2795(71)90210-8
  21. Koh EG, Chae SC, Park SK, Kim DS, Lee JB. The Cytotoxicity and effect on the experimental rabbit cornea of soft contact lens multi-purpose solution(MPS). Korean J Electron Microscopy. 2006;36(3):141-153.

피인용 문헌

  1. Changes in Subjective/Objective Symptoms and Lens Parameters by the Education for Cosmetic Contact Lens Care vol.21, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2016.21.4.361
  2. The Stability and Safety Evaluations of Soft Contact Lenses past their Expiry Date vol.22, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2017.22.1.33
  3. Biofilm Formation and its Related Gene Expression in Staphylococcus aureus on Different Materials of Soft Contact Lenses vol.22, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2017.22.3.205