Although blue light has been present in our lives for decades through solar radiation, it has recently become a major subject of interest, particularly considering the amount of time we spend in front of electronic devices. But does the artificial blue light emitted by our screens affect our skin to the same extent as sunlight? That’s what we invite you to discover.
Common misconception: The blue light from screens is as much a factor in skin aging as sunlight.
Summary
Published on January 14, 2026, updated on January 14, 2026, by Pauline, Chemical Engineer — 8 min of reading
Themes:
≈ 150 times per day
On average, we check our cell phone about 150 times per day.
> 6 hours
time spent on our cell phone per day.
4 minutes to understand your skin. Our dermatological diagnostic guides you toward the ideal skincare for your specific needs. Simple, quick, personalized.
Should we be concerned about the artificial blue light emitted by digital screens?
In recent decades, the ubiquity of digital devices has profoundly altered our lighting environment. Smartphones, computers, tablets, and televisions are now integral to daily life and entail repeated exposure to blue light, emitted notably by light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and fluorescent lighting. Unlike natural light exposure, this light is perceived at very close range, often for extended periods, especially around the face.
The blue light corresponds to a portion of the visible spectrum between 400 and 500 nm.
If the sun remains by far the primary source of blue light to which we are exposed, digital screens also emit it, albeit in lower proportions than solar radiation. However, the frequency and proximity of this exposure raise mounting concerns about its biological effects on the skin.
| Sources | Intensity |
|---|---|
| Sun | 7 700 μW/cm² |
| LED television screen (20 cm) | 78 μW/cm² |
| Computer monitor (20 cm) | 22 μW/cm² |
| Laptop computer screen (20 cm) | 15 μW/ |
| Mobile phone display (10 cm) | 11 μW/cm² |
The intensities of blue-light sources.
Source: Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks SCHEER. Opinion on potential risks to human health of light emitting diodes LEDs (2018).
According to several recent studies, prolonged and repeated exposure to blue light may disrupt certain functions of skin cells, leading to questions about its potential role in premature skin aging.
Is there an established link between blue light emitted by screens and skin aging?
Several studies suggest that blue light emitted by screens is capable of inducing oxidative stress in the skin. AUSTIN and his team notably demonstrated that just one hour of exposure to light generated by electronic devices at very close range was sufficient to significantly increase the production of reactive oxygen species in human fibroblasts. These findings emphasize that even brief exposure can trigger harmful cellular responses, although the effects of repeated or chronic exposures remain poorly characterized.
In contrast, the link between oxidative stress and skin aging is firmly established.
Skin is one of the primary target tissues for free radicals, which play an important role in its aging. With age, not only does free radical production increase, but the DNA repair capacity of skin cells progressively declines. This accumulation of oxidative damage promotes fibroblast dysfunction, extracellular matrix degradation and, ultimately, the onset of wrinkles and skin laxity.
At the molecular level, blue light primarily induces the formation of superoxide (O₂⁻), a highly reactive free radical generated notably through flavin activation. This radical is then rapidly converted into hydrogen peroxide, contributing to a diffuse yet prolonged oxidative stress. Unlike acute UV exposure, blue light may exert its deleterious effects through the continuous production of low levels of reactive oxygen species that can evade antioxidant defenses and induce cumulative DNA damage.
Furthermore, the excessive production of free radicals under the effect of blue light is accompanied by a activation of inflammatory pathways. Studies have shown an increase in pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as TNF-α, via the activation of transcription factors AP-1 and NF-κB. This inflammatory response contributes to the disruption of the skin barrier and to an environment conducive to premature aging. It should also be noted that blue light stimulates the expression of matrix metalloproteinases, enzymes involved in the degradation of the collagen and elastin. These enzymes not only degrade existing fibers but also impede the synthesis of new collagen, compromising skin repair mechanisms and promoting long-term loss of firmness.
Beyond structural aging, blue light could also influence skin pigmentation.
Several lines of evidence suggest that it can induce persistent hyperpigmentation, particularly in phototypes of darker skin. This response would be linked to a disruption of melanocyte activity, with an increase in melanogenesis. This phenomenon would be partly explained by a greater expression of the tyrosinase–dopachrome tautomerase complex in the melanocytes of darker skin, making these cells more reactive to blue light. Oxidation of melanogenic precursors, along with a reduction in carotenoids—potent natural antioxidants—would promote more intense pigmentation, potentially manifesting as pigment spots.
Finally, some studies suggest that blue light could interfere with the skin’s circadian clock.
A reduction in PER1 gene expression has been observed in keratinocytes exposed to 410 nm blue light. This disruption of biological rhythms could alter the nighttime phases of skin repair and regeneration, indirectly amplifying the mechanisms of cutaneous aging.
In practice, it is important to distinguish between the natural blue light from the sun and that emitted by digital screens.
The sun remains by far the primary source of blue light to which the skin is exposed—and the only one accompanied by ultraviolet radiation, whose harmful effects on skin cells and the aging process are well established. In contrast, artificial blue light from screens is emitted at much lower intensities and spans a broader spectrum of wavelengths, limiting its biological impact.
To date, available data suggest that blue light from screens can induce measurable cellular responses in vitro, particularly in terms of oxidative stress or disturbances in pigmentation. However, clinical evidence supporting the notion that daily screen exposure significantly accelerates skin aging remains insufficient. The observed effects appear to depend largely on specific experimental conditions, difficult to extrapolate to real-world exposure in everyday life.
Therefore, although blue light from screens represents a legitimate research topic, it should not be considered to carry the same level of risk as solar exposure.
Note : In practice, prolonged screen use is more strongly associated with eye strain, hence the emergence of blue-light blocking glasses.
Sources
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).
Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks SCHEER. Opinion on potential risks to human health of light emitting diodes LEDs (2018).
AUSTIN E. & al. Electronic device generated light increases reactive oxygen species in human fibroblasts. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine (2018).
GOLDUST M. & al. The impact of blue light and digital screens on the skin. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (2023).
WHEELWRIGHT T. Cell phone usage stats 2026. Reviews.org (2025).
RAMIREZ S. Smartphone statistics 2026: Global usage, market trends & insights. SQ Magazin (2025).
