http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
변현영(Hyun Young Byun),성형경(Hyung Gyeong Sung),원혜림(Hye Lim Won),심지인(Ji In Shim),박미정(Mi Jung Park),김소라(So Ra Kim) 한국안광학회 2014 한국안광학회지 Vol.19 No.1
Purpose:The present study was conducted to establish the experimental condition for the proper evaluation of protein removal efficacy when developing protein removal agents. Its protein removal efficacy was further analyzed and compared with the result from protein removal efficacy against protein deposition on contact lens to suggest the evaluation method for efficacy of protein removal agents. Methods: Protein digestibility assay presented in the Korean pharmacopoeia was selected to establish the evaluation method for efficacy of papain, pancreatin, subtilisin A and protease itself as a ingredient and protein removal tablets or solution containing those enzymes and find a suitable test conditions. Furthermore, the cleaning efficacy of commercially available protein removal tablets and solution on balafilcon A lens deposited with protein artificially was measured and the correlation between two evaluation methods was further analyzed. Results: When pancreatin itself and the product containing pancreatin was evaluated by protein digestibility assay, both reached 28 IU/mg, the standard value of protein digestibility suggested by the Korean pharmacopoeia. In case of protease and subtilisin A tested with trichloroacetic acid B solution, both of them met the enzyme activity level proposed by the manufacturers when they were evaluated by protein digestibility assay however, papain and subtilisin A tested with trichloroacetic acid A solution were not reached the enzyme activity level. Among protein removal agents, three products except a product containing pancreatin did not meet the enzyme activity value specified by the manufacturer when they were evaluated by protein digestibility assay. However, actual protein removal efficacy of three products except a papain-containing product on the lens was greater than 90% protein removal. In the case of papain-containing protein removal product, its effect was not measured by protein digestibility assay however, its actual protein removal efficacy on the lens reached 73.72%. Conclusions: From the results, it was confirmed that the efficacy of protein removal agents for contact lens should be evaluated by different method according to the type of proteolytic enzyme contained. That is, the protein removal agents containing pancreatin, protease and subtilisin A can be evaluated by protein digestibility assay and protein removal efficiency evaluation and the products containing papain can be effectively evaluated by only the evaluation method for protein removal efficiency employing the lens.