4.6 Article

Does infrared or ultraviolet light damage the lens?

Journal

EYE
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 241-246

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2015.266

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Carmen och Bertil Regners fond for forskning
  2. Foreningen Synskadades Vanner i Uppsala Lan
  3. Gun och Bertil Stohnes Stiftelse
  4. Konung Gustav V:s och Drottning Victorias Frimurarstiftelse
  5. Kronprincessan Margaretas Arbetsnamnd for synskadade
  6. Ogonfonden
  7. Uppsala university/Uppsala Lans Landsting's ALF Research grants
  8. Erik Funks Minnesfond

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In daylight, the human eye is exposed to long wavelength ultraviolet radiation (UVR), visible radiation and short wavelength infrared radiation (IRR). Almost all the UVR and a fraction of the IRR waveband, respectively, left over after attenuation in the cornea, is absorbed in the lens. The time delay between exposure and onset of biological response in the lens varies from immediate-to-short-to-late. After exposure to sunlight or artificial sources, generating irradiances of the same order of magnitude or slightly higher, biological damage may occur photochemically or thermally. Epidemiological studies suggest a dose-dependent association between short wavelength UVR and cortical cataract. Experimental data infer that repeated daily in vivo exposures to short wavelength UVR generate photochemically induced damage in the lens, and that short delay onset cataract after UVR exposure is photochemically induced. Epidemiology suggests that daily high-intensity short wavelength IRR exposure of workers, is associated with a higher prevalence of age-related cataract. It cannot be excluded that this effect is owing to a thermally induced higher denaturation rate. Recent experimental data rule out a photochemical effect of 1090 nm in the lens but other wavelengths in the near IRR should be investigated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available