

































Aisthesis      Volume 13,  202244

Environmental Impacts of Contact Lens Waste

by Abigail Wilhelmi

 Contact lenses have been used for decades to 
correct vision. Over 150 million people use contact 
lenses today (Moreddu et al., 2019). !e materials 
used to make contact lenses have evolved over many 
decades, but ultimately resulted in silicone-derived 
hydrogel, a plastic polymer that provides maximal 
comfort and clear vision, while also maintaining the 
eye health of the user. Contact lenses have enhanced 
the lives of many people, but a topic that is o"en le" 
out of contact lens discussions is that of plastic waste. 
 Plastic has become an item that surrounds us 
every day. As a material that is cheap, lightweight, 
strong, and malleable, plastic has become the desired 
material for many purposes (IUCN, 2021). However, 
single-use plastic and increased plastic pollution 
have recently been areas of concern and expanded 
research. Contact lenses are o"en forgotten when 
analyzing personal plastic use, likely due to their 
small size and therefore low contribution to a 
person’s overall plastic waste. Yet, a 2020 survey 
found that 21% of people still #ushed their contact 
lenses down the drain, putting them directly into 
the water system (Rolsky et al., 2020). !ese #ushed 
contact lenses have the possibility of breaking down 
into microplastics that persist in water systems for 
years to come. !is paper examines the evolution of 
plastic polymers used for contact lens material and 
discusses how current materials are contributing 
to plastic waste and microplastic contamination. 
Further, a discussion of current disposal options for 
contact lens users is included. 

Microplastic Contamination
 Over 300 million tons of plastic are produced 
globally each year, with 8 million tons designed 
for single use items (IUCN, 2021). !ese single use 
plastics o"en end up in water systems and eventually 
contaminate the ocean. Plastic materials can be 
broken down through ultraviolet (UV) radiation, 
wind, or currents. However, a"er being broken into 
smaller fragments, these pieces can accumulate 
and persist in the aquatic environment for years 

(Enfrin et al., 2019). Microplastics are small particles 
of plastics that are under $ve millimeters by the 
longest dimension, while nanoplastics consist of 
plastic particles under 100 nanometers (IUCN, 
2021). !ese materials are currently irretrievable 
contaminants that exist in oceans and other water 
systems. One study compiling microplastic counts 
from global deep-sea sediment studies estimates 
8.4 million tons of microplastic on the ocean #oors 
alone (Barrett et al., 2020). !is does not include 
suspended microplastic or larger plastic materials 
currently in the ocean. If plastic production and 
waste continue as usual, it is estimated that there will 
be more plastic than $sh in the ocean by 2050 (Ellen 
Macarthur Foundation, 2016).
 !ere are many negative impacts surrounding 
the problem of increased microplastic in the ocean. 
First, ingestion of microplastics by marine organisms 
can impact digestion and cause physiological 
consequences (Issac & Kandasubramanian, 2021). 
A recent study in the Tropical Eastern Paci$c 
consisted of collecting water samples and organisms 
for microplastic analysis. Researchers found 
microplastics in all water samples and in the digestive 
tracts of 166 of 240 marine organisms (Alfaro-
Núñez et al., 2021). Even more concerning is that 
the marine organisms analyzed consisted of those 
that are consumed by humans: 14 species of $sh, one 
species of mollusks, and one species of crustaceans. 
!ere have been studies indicating altered function 
in immunity, metabolism, neurotransmission, 
endocrine function, and reproduction in marine 
organisms that have ingested plastic (Horton et al., 
2018). !ese drastic impacts may come not only 
from the microplastics themselves, but also from 
any additives, such as plasticizer, #ame retardant, 
or pigments, contained in the plastic pieces 
(Issac & Kandasubramanian, 2021). Additionally, 
microplastics can serve as vectors for toxic 
contaminants adsorbed from the environment, such 
as pesticides as well as harmful bacteria (O’Donovan 
et al., 2018).     



Environmental Impacts of Contact Lens Waste

Aisthesis      Volume 13,  202245

 Another area of research has been microplastic 
contamination of wastewater treatment plants. 
Nano and microplastics can vary greatly in shape 
and chemical nature, making it easy for them to 
travel along water within treatment plants (Enfrin 
et al., 2019). Fortunately, most wastewater treatment 
plants studied in the United States have shown over 
95% e%ectiveness in removing microplastics (Sun 
et al., 2019). However, other parts of the world still 
have varying amounts of microplastics remaining 
in their water. For example, a study completed in 
the Czech Republic with three di%erent treatment 
plants found microplastic in all water samples, even 
those of treated water (Pivokonsky et al., 2018). 
!e amount of microplastic in treated water was on 
average 83% lower than raw water, but still indicated 
that treated water could be an important source of 
microplastics to humans. Similar to the impacts 
of microplastic on marine organisms, chemical 
contaminants adsorbed to microplastic that remains 
in drinking water can have adverse e%ects on human 
health (Eerkes-Medrano et al., 2019). As previously 
mentioned, #ushed contact lenses may be adding to 
this problem, which will be discussed in more detail 
in a later section. To understand how contact lenses 
could be contributing to microplastic contamination, 
particularly in wastewater treatment plants, a review 
of the types of plastic used for contact lens materials 
will be discussed next. 

Contact Lens Materials History and Background
 !ere are certain properties that a contact 
lens material must have. !ese include easy 
manufacturing, low cost, medium fracture 
toughness, lower elasticity modulus, transparency, 
and biocompatibility (Findik, 2011). It is estimated 
that 150 million people use contact lenses worldwide, 
which demonstrates easy manufacturing and low 
cost are important consideration factors. Medium 
fracture toughness implies that the contact lens 
will not fracture while it is being worn, and lower 
elasticity modulus ensures that the material will not 
be uncomfortably sti%. Finally, transparency and 
biocompatibility ensure that visual acuity will be 
improved while still maintaining eye health. 
 One important biocompatibility factor to consider 
for a contact lens material is oxygen permeability. 
!e cornea, which is covered by a contact lens, 
has no blood vessels to provide oxygenation for 

metabolism. Consequently, the cornea obtains 
oxygen from the surrounding air through di%usion, 
and limited exposure to the ambient air can produce 
hypoxic conditions (Morgan & Brennan, 2007). Mild 
cases of corneal hypoxia can include blurred vision, 
burning, and excessive tearing, while more severe 
cases can result in death of corneal epithelial cells 
(Long Island Ophthalmic Concepts, 2018). For this 
reason, each contact lens material has sought to limit 
disruption of oxygen intake to the cornea.
 Another important biocompatibility aspect of 
the contact lens is the wettability. !e tear $lm that is 
present on the eye functions to maintain hydration, 
ensure lubrication, and distribute nutrients (Walsh 
et al., 2019). Ideally, the contact lens will minimally 
disrupt this tear $lm. !e contact lens material 
must have polar regions that are allowed to cluster 
at the surface and attract the tear $lm for adhesion 
of the lens (Matters, n.d.). Hydrophilic character 
of the contact lens is essential if it is to remain 
wet during use, preventing discomfort during 
blinking. However, if the contact lens material is too 
hydrophilic, drawing in too much of the tear $lm to 
remain wet during use, the patient may experience 
dry eye symptoms (Walsh et al., 2019). !erefore, 
the contact lens material must be wettable, but not 
so hydrophilic that it interferes too greatly with the 
tear $lm.
 Aside from manufacturing properties, there 
are speci$c demands of the user for contact 
lens material, including length of wear, comfort 
durability, practicality of handling, and stability of 
vision (Musgrave & Fang, 2019). It is clear that there 
are many properties to take into consideration when 
discussing contact lens materials. Multiple factors 
will be discussed throughout the consideration of 
past and current contact lens materials, as they point 
to how plastic provides an excellent material to meet 
these needs.  
 When contact lenses were $rst made in the 
1880s, they were made of glass and covered the 
entire sclera (Heiting, 2021). !ese lenses were 
uncomfortable and could not be worn for more 
than a few hours. Glass is not permeable to oxygen, 
making prolonged wear a hazard for corneal health. 
Consequently, glass contact lenses did not gain 
widespread acceptance.  
 !e 1940s brought the advent of plastic, and 
polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) provided 



Environmental Impacts of Contact Lens Waste

Aisthesis      Volume 13,  202246

material for the $rst plastic lens. PMMA is an 
inexpensive, durable, optically transparent polymer 
(Musgrave & Fang, 2019). However, PMMA contact 
lenses are sti% and do not mold to the shape of the 
eye, making them one of the least comfortable types 
of contact lenses (University of Michigan Health, 
2021). Additionally, PMMA polymers exhibit dipole-
dipole intermolecular forces created by negatively 
charged oxygen and positively charged carbon and 
hydrogen. !ese forces prevent the polymer from 
moving or rotating easily, hindering wettability of 
the lens by preventing internal water and oxygen 
#ow (Musgrave & Fang, 2019). To provide a solution 
for this lack of essential oxygen permeability, contact 
lens producers $t the lenses to move with each blink, 
allowing oxygen carrying tears to be pumped under 
the lens onto the surface of the cornea (Findik, 2011). 
Regardless of this manufacturing technique, PMMA 
did not provide optimal comfort for the wearer and 
did not gain widespread acceptance until the 1950s 
and 1960s (Heiting, 2021). More recently, wettability 
was improved by increasing hydrophilicity through 
adding surfactants to the PMMA surface (Musgrave 
& Fang, 2019). !ese hard lenses make up less than 
1% of the market today (Musgrave & Fang, 2019). 
 Current hard lenses include rigid gas permeable 
lenses (RGPs). !ese lenses are more #exible 
than PMMA lenses due to incorporation of low-
modulus components that break up the strong 
intermolecular forces within the polymer (Musgrave 
& Fang, 2019). !ese components include silicone or 
#uoropolymers which allow oxygen to pass directly 
through the lens (Findik, 2011). !ey are less durable 
and more expensive than PMMA lenses, but more 
comfortable and can be used for two to three years 
before replacement (University of Michigan Health, 
2021). 
 During the 1960s and 1970s, so" contact lenses 
were introduced. Generally, so" contact lenses are 
highly #exible, oxygen permeable materials with 
high water content (Musgrave & Fang, 2019). High 
#exibility means that so" lenses $t to the user’s eye 
much faster than rigid lenses, giving almost instant 
restored vision for the patient. !e $rst so" lenses 
were composed of hydroxyethyl methacrylate 
(HEMA), which contains about 37% water by 
weight (Findik, 2011). HEMA contact lenses 
exhibit high polarity, and therefore high wettability, 
allowing for the contact lens to attract tears for 
wetness and creating a much more comfortable 

wearing experience than PMMA lenses (Musgrave 
& Fang, 2019). Despite decreased adjustment time 
for maximal visual acuity and increased comfort, 
HEMA contact lenses still did not have optimal 
oxygen permeability. To increase this essential 
function, contact lens manufacturers once again 
began incorporating silicone or #uoropolymers, 
permeability-increasing compounds, directly into 
the gel matrix. However, unaltered HEMA lenses are 
still used in speci$c cases today. Examples include 
patients who are intolerant to additive materials, 
have poor tear $lm quality, or have more complex 
prescriptions (Yu, 2019). Due to this, HEMA contact 
lenses still occupy about 22% of the market in the 
United States (Musgrave & Fang, 2019). 
 !e most common additive to HEMA contact 
lens material is silicone. Silicone-derived hydrogel 
is the most frequently used contact lens material 
today, making up 64% of the market in the United 
States (Musgrave & Fang, 2019). !ese modi$ed 
polymers can contain up to 80% water by weight 
(Findik, 2011). Silicone added to the polymer 
allows the highest oxygen permeability of any 
material that has been used for contact lenses by 
breaking up tightly bound intramolecular forces. 
!is helps to reduce complications that had resulted 
from increased hypoxia associated with previous 
materials and makes the silicone hydrogel the “go-
to” contact lens for many practitioners (Yu, 2019). 
However, incorporating silicone into hydrogel 
has certain drawbacks as well. Discomfort and 
dryness are two of the main reasons for user’s 
discontinuation, as silicone incorporation leads to 
decreased wettability of the lens (Musgrave & Fang, 
2019). Contact lens manufacturers have each taken 
an individual approach to improve these problems, 
such as incorporating further additives or adding a 
surfactant (Matters, n.d.). 
 Contact lens material has evolved through 
di%erent polymers over the last decades. As seen 
through this discussion, there are many factors to 
consider when proposing a contact lens material, 
and $nding a polymer that works perfectly with the 
physiology of the eye has not yet been done. However, 
hydrogel polymers currently o%er the best solution to 
the health concerns that accompany contact lens use. 
At present, there is no naturally occurring material 
that would provide all the necessary properties 
(Johnson & Johnson, 2021). 



Environmental Impacts of Contact Lens Waste

Aisthesis      Volume 13,  202247

Review of Contact Lens Waste Related Research
 !ere have been few studies that have reviewed 
contact lens waste, and even fewer that have 
discussed microplastic contamination resulting from 
contact lens waste. !is is possibly due to the small 
amount of plastic that contact lenses contribute to 
an individual’s overall plastic use. However, these 
studies provide crucial information for eye care 
providers and contact lens users who want to reduce 
their overall plastic waste. Additionally, disposal 
methods are vital to discuss, as contact lens entry 
into the water system may be providing a source of 
microplastic contamination. 
 !e most prevalent recent study on the 
degradation of contact lens waste focused on 
microplastic hydrogel found in wastewater treatment 
plants. In a survey completed for this study, 21% of 
people admitted to #ushing their used contact lenses 
down the drain (Rolsky et al., 2020). To see if there 
was any chemical degradation occurring once these 
contact lenses traveled through wastewater treatment 
plants, contact lenses were exposed to wastewater 
both with and without naturally occurring microbes. 
A"er varying time intervals, the longest being 192 
hours, the contact lenses showed very little chemical 
changes (Rolsky et al., 2020). 
 Despite the lack of chemical degradation, 
most contact lenses extracted from the wastewater 
treatment plant had already experienced physical 
degradation, resulting in contact lens fragments. 
Once these fragments are removed from wastewater 
and remain in a dry environment, they become very 
brittle and break into tiny pieces (Rolsky et al., 2020). 
Microplastics can then be consumed by animals, 
making their way into the food chain (Cornelius, 
2018). Conversely, if the contact lenses remain in a 
wet environment, they can use their water attracting 
properties to not only absorb water, but also any 
contaminants that are present in the water, such as 
pesticides and bacteria (Cornelius, 2018). !is can 
lead to the adverse health e%ects studied in humans 
and animals discussed previously. 
 Additionally, using information gathered from 
various manufacturing companies about the types 
of contact lenses purchased annually, Rolsky et 
al. (2020) were able to quantitively estimate how 
much contact lens waste is a%ecting water systems. 
With 21% of users #ushing their contact lenses, it is 
estimated that 42,300 to 45,700 kilograms of contact 

lenses are sequestered in United States sewage sludge 
each year (Rolsky et al., 2020). !is is equal to 420 
contact lenses within every metric ton of dry treated 
sludge (Rolsky et al., 2020). 
 Further studies on contact lens waste have 
included discussion of plastic care products that are 
necessary for certain contact lens modalities. !ese 
studies focus less on microplastic contamination 
and look more deeply at the overall plastic waste 
produced from all contact lens products. For example, 
Morgan et al. (2003) compared conventional (non-
replacement), planned (monthly) replacement, and 
daily disposable contact lenses, along with their care 
products. !e daily disposable method does not 
require any additional supplies for care, while the 
other two replacement methods do. !e conventional 
system, which would include a pair of hard contact 
lenses worn throughout the entire year, comprised 
of a peroxide-based care system, surfactant cleaner, 
saline, enzyme tablets, and four lens cases. !is 
method contained the most disposed plastic by mass 
over the course of one year due to plastic packaging 
of the care supplies, equaling 1,893 grams (Morgan 
et.al., 2003). 
 Within the planned replacement system, the 
authors considered 12 pairs of monthly replacement 
contact lenses along with a cleaning solution and 
12 lens cases. !is replacement system showed the 
least amount of disposed plastic throughout one 
year, with a mass of 549 grams (Morgan et al., 2003). 
Additionally, although the authors chose to assume 
a monthly replacement for contact lens cases within 
the planned replacement system, the American 
Optometric Association (AOA) recommends 
switching a contact lens case at least every three 
months, and most contact lens wearers likely replace 
their cases even less frequently than that (AOA, 
n.d.). Taking this into consideration would further 
decrease the amount of plastic that is associated with 
the planned replacement contact lens modality. 
 Finally, the daily disposable system consisted of 
360 pairs of daily contact lenses. No supplemental 
care products are required for this system. !e mass 
of disposed plastic using the daily disposable method 
was 953 grams (Morgan et al., 2003). !is places the 
daily disposable modality as using less plastic than 
the conventional system, but more plastic than the 
planned replacement system. 
 



Environmental Impacts of Contact Lens Waste

Aisthesis      Volume 13,  202248

 To analyze the total amount of contact lens 
related plastic waste discarded each year, 150 million 
total contact lens wearers are estimated worldwide 
in the study by Moreddu et al. (2019), and the 
approximate mass of plastic waste discarded for 
each contact lens modality is taken from Morgan 
et al. (2003). Additionally, the percentage of contact 
lens wearers using each modality is taken from the 
survey completed by Rolsky et al. (2020). !ese 
approximations result in hard lens and monthly 
disposable lens systems each producing around 40 
million kilograms of plastic waste annually, while 
daily disposable lenses result in over 50 million 
kilograms of plastic waste annually. In total, this is 
over 132 million kilograms, or 291 million pounds, 
of contact lens related plastic waste each year. 
 Finally, a"er looking at how much contact 
lens waste is produced through each modality, it is 
important to discuss how much of this plastic can 
be recycled, and how easily. Multi-purpose solution 
bottle lids, tamper evident rings, and bottle stoppers, 
as well as lids of contact lens cases do not carry a 
resin identi$cation code (RIC) and would not be 
identi$able to the consumer (Smith et al., 2021). 
!ere is also no recycling information printed on 
the foil used to seal blister packs. However, it is 
important to note that the presence of a RIC does 
not always mean that a certain plastic material is 
accepted locally for recycling, and its absence does 
not necessarily mean the product is not recyclable 
(Cramer, 2017). Within the daily disposable contact 
lens modality, the cardboard packaging is the only 
recyclable material that can be recycled at home. 
However, using a speci$c contact lens recycling 
program along with household recycling enables 
100% of daily disposable materials to be recycled 
(Smith et al., 2021). Reusable systems are limited 
by tamper evident rings, bottle lids, bottle stoppers, 
and contact lens cases which are not accepted for 
household recycling or specialist recycling methods. 
 Contact lens recycling and disposal methods are 
not always the same for each contact lens modality 
and can be unclear to the consumer. Inquiry must 
be done locally to $nd which products can be 
recycled at home, which can be recycled through 
a speci$c recycling program, and which products 
are not recyclable. Using this information, eye care 
providers and sta% can play a key role in informing 
patients about the recyclability of their contact lens 
products (Smith et al., 2021). 

Current Contact Lens Disposal Options
 As discussed previously, scientists and 
manufacturers have determined silicone-derived 
hydrogel to be the safest contact lens material option 
for a vast majority of the population. Recognizing this 
will contribute to plastic waste, most manufacturers 
are seeking or encouraging alternative disposal 
options for consumers. Currently, the single 
recycling option for contact lens wearers in the 
United States is through Bausch and Lomb’s One-by-
One recycling program. Bausch and Lomb partnered 
with TerraCycle to provide this recycling service for 
contact lens users of any brand. A"er collection, 
TerraCycle melts the contact lenses into plastic that 
can be upcycled into playground sets, park benches 
and more (Bausch and Lomb, 2021). In 2020, Bausch 
and Lomb reported the One-by-One recycling 
program had recycled nearly 27 million used contact 
lenses, foils, and blister packs since the launching 
of the program in 2016 (Bausch and Lomb, 2020). 
!is would be equal to more than 162,000 pounds of 
contact lens waste (Bausch and Lomb, 2020). 
 Acuvue has also worked with TerraCycle to 
establish a contact lens recycling program in the 
United Kingdom. If contact lens recycling is not 
available for users, the company recommends 
throwing contact lenses out with the trash and 
discourages any disposal down the drain. !eir 
website explains the reasons for using plastic 
packaging, including bene$ts that ensure the contact 
lenses will be delivered to the patient well-hydrated, 
unblemished, and germ-free (Johnson & Johnson, 
2021). 
 CooperVision is another manufacturer that is 
making e%orts to provide more sustainable options 
for contact lens users. A survey conducted by the 
company revealed 93% of eye care professionals 
in the United States agree that keeping plastic out 
of the ocean is important to them, and 84% agree 
manufacturers should take responsibility for the 
waste they create (CooperVision, 2021). To meet the 
values of optometrists and patients, CooperVision 
partnered with Plastic Bank to produce the $rst 
net plastic neutral contact lens in the United States, 
Clariti-1-Day. With the purchase of these daily 
disposable contact lenses, CooperVision funds the 
collection, processing, and reuse of plastic waste 
equivalent to the weight of plastic contained in the 
contact lenses and packaging bought (CooperVision, 
2021). 



Environmental Impacts of Contact Lens Waste

Aisthesis      Volume 13,  202249

 A survey completed by the Recycling Partnership 
in 2020 revealed that 78% of consumers are more 
conscious of supporting green and sustainable 
companies than they were $ve years ago. As this trend 
continues, eye care professionals will face questions 
from patients about contact lens sustainability and 
waste. It will be essential for providers to be aware of 
what research has been done and what manufacturers 
are doing to address this issue to adequately answer 
these questions. Further, providing education on this 
issue will be essential to minimizing the amount of 
contact lens waste that contributes to land$lls and 
microplastic contamination in water systems. 

Conclusion
 Increased plastic waste has resulted in countless 
negative impacts on the environment. Speci$cally, 
microplastic contamination of water systems has 
shown harmful health e%ects on marine organisms, 
and the consequences of ingested microplastics on 
human health are not fully known. !e International 
Union for Conservation of Nature states recycling 
and reuse of materials as the most e%ective actions 
available to reduce the environmental impacts 
of plastic. !ey also point out that governments, 
research institutions, and industries need to work 
collaboratively to redesign products and rethink 
their usage and disposal. !e $eld of optometry must 
also use this approach to address the waste produced 
by contact lenses and their packaging. 
 Contact lens materials have undergone extensive 
evolution, ultimately resulting in silicone-derived 
hydrogel which is prescribed to most patients today. 
!is hydrogel material has provided clear vision 
while maintaining eye health in many individuals. 
However, inadequate education on appropriate 
disposal methods has resulted in hydrogel contact 
lenses contributing to microplastic contamination of 
water systems. Informing contact lens users of their 
disposal options and the consequences of #ushing 
contact lens waste down the drain is essential. 
Manufacturers are beginning to address the issue of 
plastic waste that their products produce, and options 
for recycling are becoming available for contact 
lens wearers. As patients are beginning to ask more 
questions about the sustainability of their contact 
lenses, eye care professionals must be prepared to 
answer questions about how they can reduce their 
contact lens waste. In this way, the $eld of optometry 
can partake in decreasing plastic pollution.

References
Alfaro-Núñez, A., Astorga, D., Cáceres-Farías, 

L., Bastidas, L., Soto Villegas, C., Macay, K., & 
Christensen, J.H. (2021). Microplastic pollution 
in seawater and marine organisms across the 
Tropical Eastern Paci$c and Galápagos.&Scienti!c 
Reports," 11(6424). https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-021-85939-3

American Optometric Association. (n.d.). Contact 
Lens Care. https://www.aoa.org/healthy-eyes/
vision-and-vision-correction/contact-lens-
care?sso=y

Barrett, J., Chase, Z., Zhang, J., Banaszak Holl, M.M., 
Willis, K., Williams, A., Hardesty, B.D., & 
Wilcox, C. (2020). Microplastics pollution in 
deep-sea sediments from the Great Australian 
Bight. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fmars.2020.576170

Bausch and Lomb. (2020). Bausch + Lomb Reports 
Nearly 27 Million Units of Contact Lens Materials 
Recycled #rough One by One Recycling Program. 
https : //www.bausch.com/our-company/
recent-news/artmid/11336/articleid/658/ 
11122020-!ursday

Bausch and Lomb. (2021). Biotrue One Day Lenses. 
https://www.biotrueonedaylenses.com/one-by-
one-recycling

CooperVision. (2021, March 15). CooperVision 
Expands Commitment to Sustainability; clariti® 
1 day Becomes First Net Plastic Neutral Contact 
Lens in the U.S. https://coopervision. com/
our-company/news-center/press-release/
c o o p e r v i s i o n - e x p a n d s - c o m m i t m e n t -
sustainability-clariti-1-day

Cornelius, K. (2018). Contact lenses are a surprising 
source of pollution. Scienti!c American. https://
www.scientificamerican.com/article/contact-
lenses-are-a-surprising-source-of-pollution/

Cramer, K. (2017). 101: Resin Identi!cation 
Codes. Sustainable Packaging Coalition. 
https://sustainablepackaging.org/101-resin-
identi$cation-codes/



Environmental Impacts of Contact Lens Waste

Aisthesis      Volume 13,  2022

Eerkes-Medrano, D., Leslie, H.A., & Quinn, B. 
(2019). Microplastics in drinking water: A 
review and assessment. Current Opinion in 
Environmental Science and Health, 7, 69-75. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2018.12.001

Ellen Macarthur Foundation. (2016). #e New 
Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of 
Plastics. https://www.newplasticseconomy.
org/assets/doc/EllenMacArthurFoundation_
!eNewPlasticsEconomy_Pages.pdf

Enfrin, M., Dumee, L.F., & Lee, J. (2019). Nano/
microplastics in water and wastewater treatment 
processes – origin, impact and potential 
solutions. Water Research, 161, 621-638. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.06.049

Findik, F. (2011). A case study on the selection 
of materials for eye lenses. International 
Scholarly Research Notices, 2011. https://doi.
org/10.5402/2011/160671.

Heiting, G. (2021). When were contact lenses 
invented? All About Vision. https://www.
a l laboutvis ion.com/contacts/ faq/when-
invented.htm

Horton A. A., Jürgens M. D., Lahive E., et al. 
(2018). !e in#uence of exposure and physiology 
on microplastic ingestion by the freshwater $sh 
Rutilus rutilus (roach) in the River !ames, UK. 
Environmental Pollution, 236, 188–194.& https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.044.

International Union for Conservation of Nature. 
(2021). Marine Plastics. https://www.iucn.org/
resources/issues-briefs/marine-plastics

Issac, M. N., & Kandasubramanian, B. (2021). 
E%ects of microplastics in water and aquatic 
systems. Environmental Science and Pollution 
Research, 28, 19544–19562. https://doi.
org/10.1039/C6EM00206D.

Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (2021). 
Sustainability At Acuvue®: A World Worth Seeing.
Acuvue. https://www.acuvue.com/sustainability.

Long Island Ophthalmic Concepts. (2018). Corneal 
Hypoxia: Dangers of Oxygen Deprivation. 
https://www.liocny.com/blog/corneal-hypoxia-
dangers-of-oxygen-deprivation

Matters, W.I. (n.d). Contact Lens Wetting: Why It 
Matters, What Works, What Doesn’t Work. Lotas 
Leaf Coating. https://lotusleafcoatings.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/11/ WettingArticle.pdf

Moreddu, R., Vigolo D., & Yetisen, A.K. 
(2019).& Contact lens technology: From 
fundamentals to applications. Advanced 
Healthcare Materials," 8(15).& doi:10.1002/
adhm.201900368.

Morgan, P., & Brennan N. (2007). Evaluating corneal 
oxygenation during wear. Contact Lens 
Spectrum. https://www.clspectrum.com/ 
s u p p l e m e nt s / 2 0 0 7 / m ay - 2 0 0 7 / s p e c i a l -
edition-2007/font-color-000000-special-
edition-2007-font

Morgan, S. L., Morgan, P. B., & Efron, N. (2003). 
Environmental impact of three replacement 
modalities of so" contact lens wear. Contact 
Lens and Anterior Eye, 26, 43-46. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S1367-0484(02)00087-5.

Musgrave, C. S. A., & Fang, F. (2019). Contact lens 
materials: A materials science perspective. 
Materials (Basel), 12(2), 261. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ma12020261.

O’Donovan, S., Mestre, N. C., Abel, S., et al. (2018). 
Ecotoxicological e%ects of chemical 
contaminants adsorbed to microplastics in 
the clam Scrobicularia plana. Front Mar Sci, 5. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00143 

Pivokonsky, M., Cermakova, L., Novotna, K., Peer, 
P., Cajthaml, T., & Janda, V. (2018). Occurrence 
of microplastics in raw and treated drinking 
water. Science of the Total Environment, 
643(1), 1644-1651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.08.102

Rolsky, C., Kelkar, V. P., & Halden, R. U. (2020). 
Nationwide mass inventory and degradation 
assessment of plastic contact lenses in US 

50



Environmental Impacts of Contact Lens Waste

Aisthesis      Volume 13,  2022

wastewater. Environmental Science & Technology, 
54, 12102-12108. https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.0c03121?ref=pdf.

Smith, S. L., Osborn, G. N., Sulley, A., Chatterjee, 
N. B., & Morgan, P.B. (2021). An investigation 
into disposal and recycling options for daily 
disposable and monthly replacement so" contact 
lens modalities. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2021.03.002. 

Sun, J., Dai, X., Wang, Q., Van Loosdrecht, M., & Ni, 
B. (2019). Microplastics in wastewater treatment 
plants: Detection, occurrence, removal. Water 
Research, 152, 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2018.12.050.

!e Recycling Partnership. (2020). Americans Prefer 
Sustainable Companies. https://recyclingpart-
nership.org/americas-prefer-sustainable-com-
panies/

University of Michigan Health. (2020, August 31). 
Types of Contact Lenses. https://www.uofmhealth.
org/health-library/ut1799

Walsh, K., Dantam, J., & Luensmann, D. (2019, June 
15). Contact lens wear and its disruption of 
the tear $lm. Review of the Cornea and Contact 
Lenses. https://www.reviewofcontactlenses.com/
article/contact-lens-wear-and-its-disruption-of-
the-tear-$lm

Yeung, K., & Davis, R. (2019). !e environmental 
impact of contact lens waste. Contact 
Lens Spectrum, 32, 27-32. https://www.
clspectrum.com/issues/2019/august-2019/the-
environmental-impact-of-contact-lens-waste. 

Yu, J.O. (2019, May 1). Material Matters: A Place for 
Hydrogels In Every Practice. Contact Lens Spec-
trum. https://www.clspectrum.com/issues/2019/
may-2019/material-matters-a-place-for-hydro-
gels-in-every-p

51


