What are we to make of anti-blue light cosmetics?

The blue light corresponds to a part of the visible spectrum, roughly between 400 and 500 nm. It is naturally emitted by the sun, which remains by far the principal source of exposure, but also by certain artificial sources such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs), fluorescent lighting and digital screens. With the generalisation of smartphones, computers and tablets, our daily exposure to artificial blue light has evolved, raising questions about its potential effects on the skin, beyond its well-known impacts on circadian rhythm and visual fatigue.

On a cellular level, several experimental studies have shown that blue light can induce oxidative stress in skin cells. Studies in vitro, notably in keratinocytes and fibroblasts, have revealed an increase in reactive oxygen species production following even relatively brief exposure to light emitted by electronic devices. Oxidative stress is one of the hallmarks of skin ageing : it promotes DNA damage, activation of inflammatory pathways and the breakdown of collagen and elastin, particularly via the activation of matrix metalloproteinases. These phenomena are well documented in the context of UV radiation, and blue light appears capable of activating some of these pathways, albeit to a lesser extent.

Studies have also demonstrated a role for blue light in altering skin pigmentation. Some studies suggest that it can stimulate melanogenesis and lead to more pronounced and persistent pigmentation, particularly in phototypes that are darker. This response appears linked to the activation of melanocytes and to the enzymatic complexes involved in melanin synthesis, as well as to a local inflammatory context. Furthermore, blue light may disrupt the expression of genes involved in the skin’s biological clock, suggesting an indirect impact on the skin’s nocturnal repair mechanisms.

Faced with mounting concerns over blue light, the cosmetics industry has developed a new category of products branded as "anti-blue light". These offerings are available in a range of formulations: serums, day creams, eye contour treatments, mists, as well as foundations and sunscreens. Their claim typically relies on the ability to limit the effects of oxidative stress induced by visible light, to preserve the radiance of the complexion and, more broadly, to protect the skin from everyday environmental stressors.

In their formulations, such products most often emphasise mineral filters, such as iron oxides, plant-based actives rich in polyphenols, flavonoids or carotenoids, which are antioxidants. Some products also claim the inclusion of ingredients purported to form a shield on the skin’s surface or absorb part of visible light. Others take a broader approach to protection against environmental aggressors by associating blue light with pollution and infrared radiation.

When it comes to protecting oneself from blue light, the primary question concerns the actual capacity of cosmetic treatments to filter or limit its biological effects.

To date, not all products claiming ‘anti-blue light’ action are equal, and above all, they do not all rely on the same mechanisms. Photoprotection remains the most thoroughly documented strategy, even though it was not originally designed to target the visible spectrum. Sunscreens are currently the best-studied products in this context. Mineral filters, in particular titanium dioxide (TiO₂) and zinc oxide (ZnO), are capable of reflecting and scattering not only UV, but also a portion of blue light. This property is based on their physical nature: these filters form an optical barrier on the surface of the skin. In contrast, organic filters, designed to absorb UV, do not appear to offer protection against visible light.

A clinical study examined the ability of different sunscreen formulations to protect the skin from blue light, particularly around 456 nm. Conducted in 20 women with phototypes III and IV, this controlled trial assessed the development of persistent pigmentation after exposure to increasing doses of blue light on the forearm skin. The photoprotective effect of various formulas (products A, B, C and D) containing organic filters, with or without titanium dioxide, was then evaluated. The results showed that areas protected by titanium dioxide developed significantly less pigmentation. These clinical data reinforce the interest in titanium dioxide as a filter capable of mitigating the effects of blue light.

However, the use of mineral filters comes with well-known formulation limitations, notably a whitening effect linked to particle size. Reducing their size improves the aesthetic outcome, but the nanoparticles pose various health concerns when inhaled, and potentially when they penetrate the skin barrier. This is why new organic filters capable of covering an extended spectrum have been developed. One notable example is the TriAsorB filter, designed to both absorb and reflect UV rays and part of the blue light spectrum, without resorting to mineral nanoparticles.

A recent study evaluated the ability of several sunscreens containing this filter to protect the skin against the effects of high-energy blue light (400–450 nm). Nine formulations were first analysed in vitro, demonstrating excellent photostability and the capacity to block between 30 and 50 % of blue light. Two of these products, one tinted and the other untinted, were then evaluated in vivo on volunteers exposed to monochromatic irradiation at 412 nm. The results demonstrated a significant reduction in blue light–induced skin pigmentation, measured both instrumentally and clinically, within hours of exposure, particularly with the tinted formulation.

Antioxidants are another approach to mitigating the effects of blue light on the skin, primarily targeting the oxidative stress that it induces. The table below summarises the main antioxidants studied for this purpose. However, although these antioxidants exhibit complementary and promising mechanisms of action, scientific studies still emphasise the need for further investigation before they can be incorporated into cosmetic formulations intended for daily protection against blue light.

Today, anti-blue light cosmetics are based on biologically plausible mechanisms and demonstrate promising experimental results, yet clinical data remain limited. Their inclusion in a skincare regimen may be advantageous for preventative purposes, but further studies are still required.

• MORTAZAVI S. A. R. & al. Can light emitted from smartphone screens and taking selfies cause premature aging and wrinkles? Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering (2018).

• AUSTIN E. & al. Electronic device generated light increases reactive oxygen species in human fibroblasts. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine (2018).

• BAKI G. & al. Blue light protection, part II – Ingredients and performance testing methods. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (2020).

• BOLAND P. & al. Iron oxides in novel skin care formulations attenuate blue light for enhanced protection against skin damage. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (2020).

• GOLDUST M. & al. The impact of blue light and digital screens on the skin. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (2023).

• LAPALUD P. & al. Broad-spectrum sunscreens containing the TriAsorB™ filter: In vitro photoprotection and clinical evaluation of blue light-induced skin pigmentation. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (2023).

• PAIVA-SANTOS P. & al. Updated insights of active cosmetic ingredients against blue light: In vivo and in vitro evidence. Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology (2024).

• MA Y. & al. Blue light protection factor: A method to assess the protective efficacy of cosmetics against blue light-induced skin damage in the Chinese population. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences (2024).