What should we think about anti-blue light cosmetics?

The blue light corresponds to a portion of the visible spectrum, roughly spanning between 400 and 500 nm. It is naturally emitted by the sun, which is by far the primary source of exposure, but also by certain artificial sources such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs), fluorescent lighting, and digital screens. With the widespread use 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.

At the cellular level, several experimental studies have shown that blue light can induce an oxidative stress in skin cells. Studies in vitro, particularly in keratinocytes and fibroblasts, demonstrated an increase in the production of reactive oxygen species after even a relatively brief exposure to light emitted by electronic devices. Oxidative stress is one of the pillars of skin aging : it promotes DNA damage, the activation of inflammatory pathways, and the degradation of collagen and elastin, notably 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 less intensely.

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

In response to growing concerns about blue light, the skincare industry has developed a new category of products marketed as "anti–blue light." These formulations include serums, day creams, eye contour treatments, mists, as well as foundations and sunscreens. Their promise generally relies on their ability to limit the oxidative stress effects induced by visible light, to preserve the radiance of the complexion and, more broadly, to protect the skin from everyday environmental aggressors.

In their formulation, these skincare products most often emphasize mineral filters, such as iron oxides, plant-derived actives rich in polyphenols, flavonoids, or carotenoids, which are antioxidants. Some products also claim to incorporate ingredients designed to form a shield on the skin’s surface or absorb part of the visible light. Others adopt a more holistic approach to environmental protection, associating blue light with pollution and infrared radiation.

When it comes to protecting against blue light, the first question is about the actual ability of cosmetic treatments to filter it or limit its biological effects.

To date, not all products claiming "anti-blue light" action are equivalent, and, importantly, they do not all rely on the same mechanisms. Photoprotection remains the most well-documented strategy, even though it was not originally designed to target the visible spectrum. Sunscreens are currently the most thoroughly studied products in this context. Mineral filters, in particular titanium dioxide (TiO₂) and zinc oxide (ZnO), are able to reflect and scatter not only UV radiation but also part of the blue light. This property is based on their physical nature: these filters form an optical barrier on the skin’s surface. 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 skin against blue light, particularly around 456 nm. Conducted in 20 women with Fitzpatrick phototypes III and IV, this controlled study evaluated the emergence of persistent pigmentation after exposing forearm skin to increasing doses of blue light. The photoprotective effect of various formulas (products A, B, C, and D) containing organic filters, with or without titanium dioxide, was then tested. The results showed that areas protected by titanium dioxide developed significantly less pigmentation. These clinical data reinforce theinterest in the titanium dioxide as a filter capable of mitigating the effects of blue light.

However, using mineral filters imposes well-known formulation limitations, notably a whitening effect linked to particle size. Reducing their size improves the aesthetic outcome, but the nanoparticles present various health concerns when inhaled, and potentially when they cross the skin barrier. That is why new organic filters capable of covering a broader spectrum have been developed. This is particularly the case with the TriAsorB filter, designed to both absorb and reflect UV radiation and a portion of blue light, without resorting to mineral nanoparticles.

A recent study evaluated the ability of several sunscreens containing this sunscreen filter to protect the skin against the effects of high‐energy blue light (400–450 nm). Nine formulations were first analyzed in vitro, showing excellent photostability and a 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 in volunteers exposed to monochromatic irradiation at 412 nm. The results highlighted a significant reduction in blue light–induced skin pigmentation, measured both instrumentally and clinically, within the first hours after exposure, particularly with the tinted formulation.

Antioxidants offer another strategy to mitigate the effects of blue light on the skin, primarily by targeting the oxidative stress it induces. The table below summarizes the main antioxidants studied for this purpose. However, while these antioxidants display complementary and promising mechanisms of action, the scientific literature still emphasizes the need for further research before incorporating them into cosmetic formulations intended for daily protection against blue light.

Today, anti–blue-light cosmetics rely on biologically plausible mechanisms and encouraging experimental results, but clinical data remain limited. Their role in a skincare routine may be useful for prevention, yet additional studies are still needed.

• 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).