See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/12669948

Assessment of fogging resistance of anti-fog

personal eye protection

Article in Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics · August 1999

DOI: 10.1046/j.1475-1313.1999.00418.x · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

9 125

4 authors:

Stephen John Dain Annette Hoskin

UNSW Australia University of Western Australia
159 PUBLICATIONS 963 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Chris Winder Don Dingsdag

Australian Catholic University Western Sydney University
85 PUBLICATIONS 1,782 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 61 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Stephen John Dain on 18 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Ophthal. Physiol. Opt. Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 357±361, 1999
The College of Optometrists. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain
0275-5408/99 $20.00 + 0.00

PII: S0275-5408(98)00059-3

Technical Note

Assessment of fogging resistance of anti-

fog personal eye protection
Stephen J. Dain,a Annette K. Hoskin,b Chris Winder c and
Don P. Dingsdagd
a
School of Optometry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia,
b
Unisearch Ltd, Australia, cDepartment of Safety Science, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia and dSchool for Social and Workplace Development, Southern
Cross University, Australia

Summary
The propensity for occupational eye protectors to fog in warm and moist conditions is often
offered as a reason by workers not to wear occupational eye protection even where mandatory
eye protection areas have been specified. A study of eye protection practices in the New South
Wales coal mining industry identified the number one issue in underground coal mine conditions
as being fogging of eye safety wear. Conventional anti-fog treatments and cleaners were con-
sidered by the miners as completely inadequate in these conditions. At the time of the study
claims were being made for a new generation of lens treatments. These merited evaluation.
Spectacles and goggles claimed to be fog resistant were obtained from manufacturers and sup-
pliers and subjected to the test set out in BS EN 168 and the compliance criterion of BS EN
166. Some lenses claimed to be fog resistant failed the requirement, some new technology
lenses showed arguably superior performance but failed the criterion of the standard. Modifi-
cations to the test procedure of BS EN 168 and acceptance criteria of BS EN 166 are pro-
posed. The College of Optometrists. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Introduction treatments and these claims merited independent evalu-

It has been established by Dingsdag et al. (1996) that a
major cause of reluctance to comply with personal eye
protection wearing requirements in the New South
Wales underground coal mining industry was the pro-
pensity for eye protector lenses to fog in the humid
conditions. Control of dust and the prevention of con-
sequential lung disease in the miners is achieved by
substantial damping down with water sprays. This
results in a very high relative humidity. In addition
heat and moisture generated in exhaled breath and
body heat due to exertion, especially if respiratory pro-
tection is worn, can be trapped behind eye protection.
Some claims have been made for new generation lens
Correspondence and reprint requests to Dr S. J. Dain.
Received: 21 May 1997
Revised form: 17 February 1998
ation and investigation since no validation was o€ered
by the suppliers. Details of the exact nature of the sur-
faces are considered commercially sensitive at present.
Informal evaluations by underground miners have
shown that the newer type of lenses are considered
markedly superior to the older types. (Dingsdag et al.,
1996). Given that guidance on the e€ectiveness of
claimed anti-fogging treatments would be extremely
useful in the design and selection of anti-fog eye pro-
tectors for underground coal mining, especially in the
absence of any local performance standards, the
methods and acceptance criterion of the European
Standards EN 166 and EN 168 (in the form of BS EN
166 and BS EN 168), as the de facto international
standards in the absence of any International
Organisation for Standardisation standard or draft
standard, were adopted to assess a number of currently

357
358 Ophthal. Physiol. Opt. 1999 19: No 4

available occupational eye protectors claimed to be fog
resistant. In retrospect the study has demonstrated
problems with the test method and acceptance criteria
rather than produced useful guidance on material per-
formance.
The mechanism of fogging of the older type of anti-
fog eye protector has been described in Margrain and
Owen (1996) but the details of the new generation ma-
terials are closely guarded commercially.
Samples
Samples of anti-fog spectacles and goggles were
obtained from local suppliers and manufacturers by
purchase or donation. They were neither a complete
nor random sample and, as a consequence, the suppli-
ers are not identi®ed with the eye protectors. They are
detailed in Table 1. All were commercially available
and claimed anti-fog except for the ®rst two samples
in group F which were a pre-production prototype.
Apparatus
The apparatus set out in the BS EN 168 is shown in
Figure 1. The collimated beam from a Helium±Neon
laser 628 nm (Uniphase, Manteca, CA, USA) (the
standard requires 600 2 70 nm) is 10 times to be nom-
inally 10 mm in diameter and passes through a semi
silvered mirror and the lens under test expanded (all
other optical components: Edmund Scienti®c,
Barrington, NJ, USA). It is then re¯ected at a front
surface mirror, passes through the lens again, is
re¯ected by the semi silvered mirror and focused into
the plane of a 10 mm diameter photodetector. Any dif-
fuseness in the transmission will cause some or all of
the light to fall outside the detector and the detector
output to drop. Behind the lens under test is an
enclosed space part ®lled with water held at
50.0 2 0.28C (the standard sets 50 20.58C) and stirred
with an electric fan. In practice the reading was always
50.08C. The apparatus was built on a Cole-Parmer
12501 series water bath (Cole-Palmer, Niles, IL, USA)
which has a digital temperature controller/display with
a nominal stability of 20.28C. For this study all ther-
mometers were calibrated with reference to the Optics
& Radiometry Laboratory Standard 68a. Laboratory
Standard 68a is a mercury in glass thermometer for
which a National Association of Testing Authorities
(NATA) endorsed calibration certi®cate number
46677/B.7207 dated 14/6/86 was issued by Dobbie
Instruments (Australia) Pty Ltd. The thermometer is
checked according to the methods of Beavis (1981) at
6 monthly intervals. The uncertainty in calibration is
20.158C (con®dence level not stated).
The samples were conditioned by immersion in dis-
tilled water at 23 228C (standard requires 258C) for
1 h then dabbed dry and conditioned in air for at least
12 h at 23 2 28C (standard requires 258C) and
502 3%.
Humidity was monitored using meters referenced to
Optics & Radiometry Laboratory Standard 86.
Laboratory Standard 86 is a Psychro-Dyne psychrom-
eter (Industrial Instruments and Supplies,
Southampton, PA, USA) including two mercury in
glass thermometers for which a National Association
of Testing Authorities (NATA) endorsed calibration
certi®cate number 200228 dated 7 August 1997 was
issued by Testing & Certi®cation Australia. The ther-

Table 1. Description of samples of goggles and spectacles

Goggles
Identifier Description

A 5 untinted acetate lenses

B 5 pale blue tinted acetate lenses
C 5 untinted polycarbonate lens
Spectacle type (one piece lenses)
Identifier

D Manufacturer #1. All nominally the same material but different models
.1 3 untinted, 1 grey tinted and 1 yellow polycarbonate
.2 3 untinted polycarbonate
.3 5 untinted polycarbonate
.4 5 untinted polycarbonate
E Manufacturer #2. One model, two tints, same nominal material
.1 6 untinted polycarbonate
.2 5 grey tinted polycarbonate
F Manufacturer #3
.1 2 untinted pre-production prototype polycarbonate
.2 6 untinted production polycarbonate nominally the same as the pre-production

Figure 1. The experimental set up (redrawn from BS EN 168) see text for details.
mometers are checked according to the methods of
Beavis (1981) at 6 monthly intervals. The uncertainty
in calibration is 20.18C (95% con®dence level). The
relative humidity is calculated according to the
methods of British Standard 4833:1986. At 238C and
50% relative humidity the temperature uncertainty
translates to an uncertainty in relative humidity
measurement of 1.1% (95% con®dence level). All
uncertainties have been calculated according to the
procedures of the ISO (1995) report.
In accordance with the method of BS EN 168 the
following routine was followed. The water bath tem-
perature was allowed to stabilise with a dummy lens in
place. The stirring fan (``ventilator'' in the standard)
was turned o€ and after 5 s the dummy lens replaced
with the lens under test. The timer was started. In
most cases the moment of fogging was observable visu-
ally in the laser beam and general room lighting.
Where this was not possible the output of the detector
was observed continually until the point at which it
read 0.64 of its original value (when the lens under test
was ®rst inserted into the laser beam). When this value
was reached or the lens visibly fogged, the timer was
Fogging resistance: S. J. Dain et al. 359
stopped. The uncertainty in time interval measurement
was 20.5 s.
The instruction sheet for the operator is appended
as Appendix A.
Subsequent to this study testing of fogging resistance,
using exactly the methods detailed here, has been
included in the terms of accreditation of the Optics &
Radiometry laboratory by NATA. NATA accreditation
is recognised by the United Kingdom Accreditation
Service (UKAS) in a mutual recognition agreement.
Results
The results of the assessment are set out in Table 2.
It should also be noted that untreated lenses, of any
commonly used eye protector material, fog within 1 s
and do not clear within 60 s.
Discussion
(a) Problems with test method
It is reasonable to assume that the test method was
designed with the typical hydrophilic coatings in mind.
The hydrophilic coating initially absorbs the deposited
360 Ophthal. Physiol. Opt. 1999 19: No 4
Table 2. Fogging time when tested in accordance with BS EN 168
Group Sample Fogging time individual results (s)
A 5 pairs L&R 5, 5, 17, 13, 10, 11, 4, 5, 5, 4
B 5 pairs L&R 27, 25, 48, 45, 46, 45, 44, 42, 39, 40
C 5 pairs L&R Initial fog for 3 s
D 18 pairs L&R 16, 4, 12, 16, 15, 7, >60, >60, 10, 20,
9, 9, 9, >60, >60, >60, >60, >60, 4, 1,
>60, >60, 8, 7, >60, >60, >60, >60
E 11 pairs L&R all >60
F 8 pairs L&R >60, >60, 10, >60, remainder all initial fog
moisture until fully hydrated, in much the same way
as a dehydrated soft contact lens will absorb water.
Once the material is fully hydrated, then droplets form
on the surface and the lens is seen to fog. The greater
the initial dehydration of the surface, the longer it will
take to hydrate and then fog. The pre-conditioning
a€ects the performance of the lens markedly. Retesting
a sample which has just been hydrated by the testing
without the 50% relative humidity pre-conditioning,
will cause a shorter fogging time since the hydrophilic
surface will be more hydrated before being placed on
the test site. The onset of fogging in these material
types is delayed but, once it occurs, was observed as
just as rapid as with untreated surfaces. The ``new gen-
eration'' treatments react an entirely di€erent way.
There may be an initial fog which lasts 2±3 s, which is
longer than permitted in the standards. When this hap-
pens, the lens fails the requirement. When the lens is
left in place, the fog clears and the lens does not re-fog
within 60 s, after which time observation was routinely
discontinued. On removal of this type of lens it was
observed that water had gathered on the surface but
not formed into droplets to create fogging. Some
lenses were left on for up to 30 min and it was
observed that they were visually the same as after
1 min. The water ®lm was suciently even as to not
di€use the laser beam unless an irregularity happened
to occur in the vicinity of the beam. Thus the surfaces
had a modi®ed surface tension characteristic which
changed the nature of the water deposition rather than
prevented it or absorbed it. It was also observed that
on wiping the surface dry and retesting immediately
and without pre-conditioning, the initial fogging did
not occur nor did the lenses fog within the 60 s before
observation was discontinued. Thus it is of some ad-
vantage to the new generation lens treatment to be
partially hydrated. The BS EN 168 requirement of the
full conditioning routine, including a 50% relative
humidity environment, is placing these manifestly su-
perior surfaces at some disadvantage.
In the circumstances we propose that the initial fog-
ging allowance be extended from 0.5 s to 3 s. It would
be equally justi®able to extend the required fog-free
Comply with BS EN 168 X [ Overall
XX[[[[XXXX Fail
[[[[[[[[[[ Pass
XXXXXXXXXX Fail
[X[[[X[[[[ Fail
[[[[[[[[XX
[[XX[[[[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Pass
[[[[XXXXXXXXXX Fail
period so that this is not seen as relaxing a standard.
In practice the producers of old technology anti-fog
coatings will argue that this would exclude previously
acceptable products without justi®cation. Thirdly we
propose that an immediate retest, without pre-con-
ditioning, be permitted and that the better of the two
performances (pre-conditioned vs not pre-conditioned)
be accepted. For old technology coatings the perform-
ance after the current pre-conditioning will be the bet-
ter and for the newer types of lenses the performance
will be better in the second test situation.
(b) Comparative performances
Assessed against the modi®ed parameters, all the
spectacle lenses (the new generation surface type)
except the production samples in Group F, passed the
requirement. The superiority of the new materials is
seen but some indication of variability in one of the
manufacturing processes is evident.
An additional problem identi®ed was that Group A
had a visible haze to the lenses. When tested with a
BYK-Gardner model XL-211 Hazegard (BYK-
Gardner, Silver Springs, MD, USA) in accordance
with AS/NZS 1337 (technically equivalent to BS
2782:1992 and ASTM D1003) showed a mean haze of
6.0% which well exceeds that permitted by the stan-
dard. The hazemeter had been calibrated using six
haze standards calibrated by National Physical
Laboratory (UK) report number QO03/3/93/053 dated
4 November 1993. They also failed the light di€usion
requirements of BS EN 166 in a custom built optical
bench built in accordance with BS EN 167. The eye
protectors were not, however, marked as complying
with any standard.
Conclusions
(a) Of the eye protectors claimed to be fog resistant,
there is a signi®cant number not meeting the mini-
mum fogging requirements of BS EN 166.

(b) There is a need to modify the method and accep-
tance criteria of the test method of BS EN 166 and
168 to accommodate the slightly longer transient
fogging characteristics of the otherwise superior
newer treatments and to allow variations in the
pre-conditioning which do not presuppose the
characteristics of hydrophilic coatings.
(c) Informal reports indicate that within the products
exceeding 60 s fogging time, there are variations in
on the job performance. As a consequence there is
a need to develop formal on-site evaluations and
laboratory test methods to assist in comparative
evaluation of these products.
(d) Production fog resistance testing of materials is a
clear necessity.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by a grant from the Joint
Coal Board Health and Safety Trust. The authors wish
to acknowledge the donation of eye protectors by
Protector Technologies Pty Ltd.
References
ASTM D1003-95. Standard test method for haze and
luminous transmittance of transparent plastics. American
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshocken, PA.
AS/NZS 1337:1992. Eye protectors for industrial
applications. Standards Australia, North Sydney.
Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
Beavis, M. (1981). Techniques for the calibration of liquid-
in-glass thermometers. Division of Applied Physics
Technical Paper No. 4, Commonwealth Scienti®c and
Industrial Research Organisation, Australia.
BS EN 166:1996. Personal eye-protectionÐspeci®cations.
British Standards Institute, London.
BS EN 167:1995. Personal eye-protectionÐoptical test
methods. British Standards Institute, London.
BS EN 168:1995. Personal eye-protectionÐnon-optical test
methods. British Standards Institute, London.
BS 2782:1992. Methods of testing plastics, Part 5: method
521A: determination of haze of ®lm and sheet. British
Standards Institute, London.
BS 4833:1986. British standard schedule for hygrometric
tables for use in the testing and operation of
environmental enclosures. British Standards Institute,
London.
Dingsdag, D., Dain, S. J. and Winder, C. (1996). Prevention
not reaction: eye safety in the NSW coal mining industry.
Report to the Joint Coal Board Health and Safety Trust,
Sydney.
ISO (1995). Guide to the expression of uncertainty in
measurement. International Organisation for
Standardization.
Margrain, T. H. and Owen, C. (1996). The misting
characteristics of spectacle lenses. Ophthal. Physiol. Opt.
16, 108±114.
View publication stats
Fogging resistance: S. J. Dain et al. 361
Appendix A
Determination of fogging resistance
Scope
This method assesses fogging resistance in accord-
ance with BS EN 166 and BS EN 168.
Method
(a) Conditioning of samples
Place the samples in the glass dish. Cover with dis-
tilled water and leave for 1 h at 23 258C (the labora-
tory is normally 232 28C). Dab dry and leave in air for
at least 12 h at 23 2 58C and 502 3% relative humidity
(check using humidity logger or psychrometer).
(b) Setting up of water bath
Turn the water bath on. Check that the water bath
is set for 50.08C. Turn the stirring fan on and the
laser. Ensure that the laser beam is passing approxi-
mate through the centre of the aperture. Cover the
aperture with a spare lens.
Allow to stabilise and leave for 30 min after 50.08C
is reached.
Measurements
(i) Visual
Turn the fan o€. Replace the covering lens with the
lens under test. Set timer going. Observe where the
laser beam meets the lens and when the surface fogs,
stop timer and record sample identi®er and time.
Initial momentary fogging in the ®rst 0.5 s should be
ignored. Turn the fan back on and replace test lens
with spare lens. If the onset of fogging cannot be
determined visually then use method (ii) below, having
repeated the conditioning on tested lens.
(ii) Photometric
Turn the indicating meter on. Set appropriate scale
turn the fan o€. Replace the covering lens with the
lens under test. Set the timer going immediately.
Note: the meter reading. Calculate the meter reading
0.64 and record. Stop the timer and note the time
when this last value is reached and record. Turn the
fan back on and replace test lens with spare lens.
If necessary, the photocell output may be monitored
on the digital storage oscilloscope and the time
obtained from that record.