Background: Around the world it is learnt that between 5-34% of people have some form at dry eye and prevalence significantly increases with age^{. [4, 5]} The large variation in the prevalence of dry eye disease is attributed to the variations in the study population, geographical differences and lack of uniformity in method and definitions of the disease dry eye.

Patients and Methods: during the period from July 2015 to Nov-2016 Patients were consecutively selected and underwent a routine ophthalmological examination along with tear film break-up time (TBUT), Schimers test and Rose Bengal test or flourescien staining as a screening tools for detecting the presence of dry eye. Statistical Analysis: Data are expressed as mean, standard deviation and range. For quantitative data, statistical evaluations are performed by using t test and for qualitative data chi square test is used.

Results: In the present study 115 of patients developed dry eye cause of environmental cause. 28.57% of dry eye patients were noted to be farmers and laborers and 23.33% of dry eye patients belong to high exposure group(computer operator, driver, salesman, mechanics, field worker, cooks) this explains the fact that these are the person who worked more outdoors and exposed to sun and/or dust developing dry eye.

Conclusion: our study showed that the prevalence of dry eye disease is significantly affected by the person who worked more outdoors and exposed to sun and/or dust developing dry eye Thus environmental factors plays pivotal role in the development of dry disease.

1. The definition and classification of dry eye disease: Report of the Definition and Classification Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye WorkShop (2007). Ocul Surf2007;5:75-92.
2. DE Haas EB. The pathogenesis of keratoconjunctivitis ICCA. Ophthalmo-logica 1964;147:1-18.
3. Ridder WH, Zhang Y, Huang JF. Evaluation of reading speed and contrast sensitivity in dry eye disease. Optom Vis Sci. (3rd) 2013;90:37–44. 
4. Deschamps N, Ricaud X, Rabut G, Labbe A, Baudouin C, Denoyer A. The impact of dry eye disease on visual performance while driving. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156:184–189.
5. Li M, Gong L, Chapin WJ, Zhu M. Assessment of vision-related quality of life in dry eye patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:5722–5727. 
6. Schiffman RM, Walt JG, Jacobsen G, Doyle JJ, Lebovics G, Sumner W. Utility assess-ment among patients with dry eye disease Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1412–1419.
7. American Academy of Ophthalmology Basic and Clinical Science Course Subcommittee. Basic and Clinical Science Course. External Disease and Cornea: Section 8, 2013-2014. San Francisco, CA: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2013:47-8.
8. Management and therapy of dry eye disease: report of the Management and Therapy Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye Work- Shop (2007).Ocul Surf 2007; 5: 163–78.
9. Reddy M, Reddy P Ranga , Reddy SC . Conjuctival impression of cytology in dry eye states . Indian journal of ophthalmology 1991;39(1):22-24
10. Van Bijsterveld OP. Diagnostic tests in the sicca syndrome. Arch Ophthalmol I 1969; 2: 10—14.
11. Abeitz JM et al Prevelance of dry eye subtypes in clinical optometry practice . Optom Vis Sci 2000;77(7):357-63
12. Omar s Punjabi ; R.s.Adhyanthaya , AD Mhatre , RP JehangirRehumatoid arthritis is a risk factor of dry eye in indian population OpthalmologicalEpedimeol Dec 2006;13(6) 379-384
13. Sukul RR, Shukia Manoj, Nagpal Girish. Tear film break up time in normal Indian subjects. Indian journal of ophthalmology 1 983;31 (4):326- 329.

Dhiraj Lambat DOMS

Junior Resident, Ophthalmology Department,

Government Medical College, Nanded

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.