A Comparative Study of Adhesion Evaluation Methods on Ophthalmic AR Coating Lens
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results and Discussion
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wu, Q.Y.; Tang, Y.H.; Chen, X.Y.; Ma, C.L.; Yao, F.; Liu, L. Method for evaluating ophthalmic lens based on Eye-Lens-Object optical system. Opt. Express 2019, 27, 37274–37285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, L.; Xu, Y.; Chu, Z.; Tang, W.; Qiu, Y.; Zhao, X.; Jiang, W.; Ye, J.; Chen, C. Rapid coating of ultraviolet shielding colloidal crystals. Crystals 2020, 10, 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flaxman, S.R.; Bourne, R.R.A.; Resnikooff, S.; Ackland, P.; Braithwaite, T.; Cicinelli, M.V.; Das, A.; Jonas, J.B.; Keeffe, J.; Kempen, J.H.; et al. Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990–2020: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 2017, 5, 1221–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gifford, K.L.; Richdale, K.P.A.; Aller, K.T.; Lam, C.S.; Liu, Y.M.; Michaud, L.; Mulder, J.; Orr, J.B.; Rose, K.A.; Saunders, K.J.; et al. IMI–clinical management guidelines report. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019, 60, 185–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tadokoro, N.; Jaisupap, K.; Sukbumperng, A.; Pannakarn, S.; Khraikratoke, S.; Jamnongpian, P.; Iwata, N. Investigation of shrinkage and cracking of ophthalmic lens coating by a cycle test of UV radiation and high humidity. Thin Solid Film. 2012, 520, 4169–4173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbero, S.J. Portilla: Simulating real-world scenes viewed through ophthalmic lenses. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2017, 34, 1301–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rojo, P.; Royo, S.; Caum, J.; Ramírez, J.; Madariaga, I. Generalized ray tracing method for the calculation of the peripheral refraction induced by an ophthalmic lens. Opt. Eng. 2015, 54, 025106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Samson, F. Ophthalmic lens coatings. Surf. Coat. Technol. 1996, 81, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivatsa, K.M.K.; Bera, M.; Basu, A.; Bhattacharya, T.K. Antireflection coatings on plastics deposited by plasma polymerization process. Bullet Mater. Sci. 2008, 31, 673–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bosch, S. Lens coating in thermal evaporation physical vapour deposition chambers: Optimization of the geometrical configuration. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 1993, 26, 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinto, G.; Silva, F.J.G.; Porteiro, J.; Miguez, J.L.; Baptista, A.; Fernandes, L. A critical review on the numerical simulation related to Physical Vapour Deposition. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 17, 860–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cosar, M.B.; Aydogdu, G.H.; Batman, H.; Ozhan, A.E.S. A solution to adhesion problem of oxide thin films on zinc selenide optical substrates. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2017, 314, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, H.; Wang, Y.G.; Fu, H.R.; Jain, A.; Chen, F.G. Combined negative thermal expansion and anti-reflective effects of ZrW2O8 layer on the VO2 films with an enhanced luminous transmittance. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2020, 211, 110528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grenadyorov, A.S.; Solovyev, A.A.; Oskomov, K.V.; Oskirko, V.O.; Semenov, V.A. Thermal stability of anti-reflective and protective a-C:H:SiOx coating for infrared optics. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2020, 510, 145433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arias, N.; Jaramillo, F. Highly reflective aluminum films on polycarbonate substrates by physical vapor deposition. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2020, 505, 144596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Shaw, C.; Gelman, L.; Grattan, K.T.V. Advances in test and measurement of the interface adhesion and bond strengths in coating-substrate systems, emphasising blister and bulk techniques. Measurement 2019, 139, 387–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Affandi, N.D.N.; Fadil, F.; Misnon, M.I. Preliminary study on the adhesion strength of electrospun bi-layer membranes by 180° peel test. Fibers Polym. 2019, 20, 1317–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 8980.4:2006. Ophthalmic Optics-Uncut Finished Spectacle Lenses-Part 4: Specifications and Test Methods for Anti-Reflective Coatings; The Inernational Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 2819:2017. Metallic Coatings on Metallic Substrates-Electrodeposited and Chemically Deposited Coatings -Review of Methods Available for Testing Adhesion; The Inernational Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 4624:2016. Paints and Varnishes-Pull-off Test for Adhesion; The Inernational Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 16276-1:2007. Corrosion Protection of Steel Structures by Protective Paint Systems—Assessment of, and Acceptance Criteria for, The Adhesion/Cohesion (Fracture Strength) of a Coating—Part 1: Pull-off Testing; The Inernational Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 17132:2007. Paints and Varnishes—T-Bend Test; The Inernational Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 22970:2019. Paints and Varnishes-Test Method for Evaluation of Adhesion of Elastic Adhesives on Coatings by Peel Test, Peel Strength Test and Tensile Lap-Shear Strength Test with Additional Stress by Condensation Test or Cataplasm Storage; The Inernational Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 8510-1:1990. Adhesives-Peel Test for a Flexible-Bonded to-Rigid Test Specimen Assembly-Part 1: 90° Peel; The Inernational Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 8510-2:1990. Adhesives-Peel Test for a Flexible-Bonded to-Rigid Test Specimen Assembly-Part 2: 180° Peel; The Inernational Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 16276-2:2007. Corrosion Protection of Steel Structures by Protective Paint Systems—Assessment of, and Acceptance Criteria for, The Adhesion/Cohesion (Fracture Strength) of a Coating—Part 2: Cross-Cut Testing and X-Cut Testing; The Inernational Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 2409:2013. Paints and Varnishes—Cross-Cut Test; The Inernational Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 20566:2020. Paints And Varnishes-Determination of The Scratch Resistance of a Coating System Using a Laboratory-Scale Car-Wash; The Inernational Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 22557:2019. Paints and Varnishes—Scratch Test Using a Spring-Loaded Pen; The Inernational Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 18922:2003. Imaging Materials—Processed Photographic Films—Methods for Determining Scratch Resistance; The Inernational Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 20502:2005. Fine Ceramics (Advanced Ceramics, Advanced Technical Ceramics)—Determination of Adhesion of Ceramic Coatings by Scratch Testing; The Inernational Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- GB 10810.4-2012. Uncut Finished Spectacle Lenses—Part 4: Specifications and Test Methods for Anti-Reflective Coatings; The Standardization Administration of the People′s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Publisher′s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
Classification | Description | Appearance of Grid Sets |
---|---|---|
0 | The edges of the cuts are completely smooth and none of the squares of the lattice is detached. | — |
1 | Detachment of small flakes of the coating at the inter-sections of the cuts. A cross-cut area not greater than 5% is affected. | |
2 | The coating has flaked along the edges and/or at intersections of the cuts. A cross-cut area greater than 5%, but not greater than 15%, is affected. | |
3 | The coating has flaked along the edges of the cuts partly or wholly in large ribbons, and/or it has flaked partly or wholly on different parts of the squares. A cross-cut area greater than 15%, but not greater than 35%, is affected. | |
4 | The coating has flaked along the edges of the cuts in large ribbons, and/or some squares have detached partly or wholly. A cross-cut area greater than 35%, but not greater than 65%, is affected. | |
5 | Any degree of flaking that cannot even be classified by classification 4. | — |
Sample Number | ISO 2409 Method | |
---|---|---|
Visual Inspection | 20× Microscope | |
Classification | Classification | |
1 | 2 | 2 |
2 | 1 | 1 |
3 | 4 | 4 |
4 | 1 | 2 |
5 | 3 | 3 |
6 | 5 | 5 |
7 | 2 | 2 |
8 | 4 | 3 |
9 | 4 | 3 |
10 | 1 | 1 |
11 | 1 | 2 |
12 | 2 | 2 |
13 | 1 | 1 |
14 | 1 | 1 |
15 | 3 | 3 |
16 | 5 | 5 |
Classification | Description |
---|---|
— | The edges of the cuts shall be completely smooth; none of the squares of the lattice shall be detached. If the coating has flaked along the edges and/or at intersections of the cuts, the number of flaking grids shall be smaller than 15%. Completely detachment of coating within one grid is not permitted. |
Lens Number | GB 10810.4 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Visual Inspection | 20× Microscope Observation | |||
Detachment Amount | Average Detachment Amount 1 | Detachment Amount | Average Detachment Amount | |
1 | 13 | 3 | 13 | 3 |
2 | 18 | 5 | 21 | 5 |
3 | 31 | 8 | 40 | 10 |
4 | 37 | 9 | 41 | 10 |
5 | 10 | 3 | 25 | 6 |
6 | 39 | 10 | 39 | 10 |
7 | 8 | 2 | 9 | 2 |
8 | 22 | 6 | 22 | 6 |
9 | 12 | 3 | 27 | 7 |
10 | 7 | 2 | 13 | 3 |
11 | 25 | 6 | 27 | 18 |
12 | 35 | 9 | 45 | 11 |
13 | 16 | 4 | 28 | 7 |
14 | 10 | 3 | 15 | 4 |
15 | 25 | 6 | 41 | 10 |
16 | 30 | 8 | 35 | 9 |
SampleNumber | Front Surface | Back Surface | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Position A | Position B | Position C | Position D | |
5 | ||||
Visual inspection | detachment amount = 10 | detachment amount = 0 | No detachment | No detachment |
Microscope observation | detachment amount = 10 | detachment amount = 15 | No detachment | No detachment |
9 | ||||
Visual inspection | detachment amount = 12 | detachment amount = 0 | No detachment | No detachment |
Microscope observation | detachment amount = 20 | detachment amount = 7 | No detachment | No detachment |
14 | ||||
Visual inspection | detachment amount = 10 | detachment amount = 0 | No detachment | No detachment |
Microscope observation | detachment amount = 15 | detachment amount = 0 | No detachment | No detachment |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, X.; Ma, W.; Zhang, S.; Huang, H.; Ouyang, L.; Peng, W.; Ye, J.; Chen, C. A Comparative Study of Adhesion Evaluation Methods on Ophthalmic AR Coating Lens. Coatings 2020, 10, 979. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings10100979
Zhang X, Ma W, Zhang S, Huang H, Ouyang L, Peng W, Ye J, Chen C. A Comparative Study of Adhesion Evaluation Methods on Ophthalmic AR Coating Lens. Coatings. 2020; 10(10):979. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings10100979
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Xin, Wei Ma, Songjin Zhang, Hongliang Huang, Liu Ouyang, Wei Peng, Jiayi Ye, and Cheng Chen. 2020. "A Comparative Study of Adhesion Evaluation Methods on Ophthalmic AR Coating Lens" Coatings 10, no. 10: 979. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings10100979