What should we think about anti–blue light cosmetics?

The blue light corresponds to a portion of the visible spectrum, roughly 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 increased, 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, notably in keratinocytes and fibroblasts, have demonstrated an increase in the production of reactive oxygen species after even relatively brief exposure to light emitted by electronic devices. Moreover, oxidative stress is one of the cornerstones of skin aging : it promotes DNA damage, activates inflammatory pathways, and degrades 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 to be able to activate some of these pathways, albeit to a lesser extent.

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

In light of growing concerns about blue light, the cosmetics industry has introduced a new category of skincare products marketed as "anti-blue light." These products are available in various formulations: serums, day creams, eye-contour treatments, mists, as well as foundations and sunscreens. Their promise generally relies on the capacity to mitigate the oxidative stress induced by visible light, to preserve thecomplexion’s radiance and, more broadly, to protect the skin from everyday environmental stressors.

In their formulation, these skincare products most often feature mineral filters, such as iron oxides, along with plant-derived actives rich in polyphenols, flavonoids, or carotenoids, which act as antioxidants. Some products also claim to incorporate ingredients designed to form a shield on the skin’s surface or absorb a portion of visible light. Others take a more comprehensive approach to protection against environmental aggressors by linking blue light with pollution and infrared radiation.

When it comes to protecting against blue light, the first question to consider is the actual ability of cosmetic skincare products to filter it or mitigate its biological effects.

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

A clinical study examined the ability of different sunscreen formulations to protect the skin against blue light, particularly around 456 nm. Conducted in 20 women with phototypes III and IV, this controlled study assessed the development of persistent pigmentation following 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 tested. The results show that areas protected by titanium dioxide developed significantly less pigmentation. These clinical data reinforce theimportance of titanium dioxide as a filter capable of mitigating the effects of blue light.

However, the use of mineral filters poses well-known formulation limitations, notably a whitening effect related to particle size. Reducing their size improves the aesthetic result, but the nanoparticles raise various health concerns when inhaled, and potentially when they penetrate the skin barrier. That is why new organic filters capable of covering an extended spectrum have been developed. One example is the TriAsorB filter, designed to both absorb and reflect UV rays as well as a portion of blue light, without relying on mineral nanoparticles.

A recent study assessed 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 an ability 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 demonstrated a significant reduction in blue light–induced skin pigmentation, measured by both instrumental tools and clinical evaluation, as early as the first hours after exposure, particularly with the tinted formulation.

Antioxidants are another approach to mitigating the effects of blue light on the skin, primarily targeting oxidative stress that it induces. The table below summarizes the main antioxidants studied for this purpose. However, it should be noted that, although these antioxidants display complementary and promising mechanisms of action, scientific research still underscores the need for further investigation before integrating them into cosmetic formulations intended for daily protection against blue light.

Today, blue-light-blocking cosmetics rely on biologically plausible mechanisms and show encouraging experimental results, but clinical data remain limited. Their role in a skincare routine may be worthwhile for prevention, but further studies are still needed.

• MORTAZAVI S.A.R. et al. Can the light emitted by smartphone screens and frequent selfie-taking promote premature skin aging and wrinkle formation? Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering (2018).

• Austin E. et al. Light emitted by electronic devices increases reactive oxygen species in human fibroblasts. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine (2018).

• BAKI G. et al. Blue Light Protection, Part II – Ingredients and Performance Testing Methods. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (2020).

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

• GOLDUST M. et al. The Effects of Blue Light and Digital Screens on the Skin. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (2023).

• LAPALUD P. et al. Broad-spectrum sunscreens incorporating 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. et al. Updated insights into active cosmetic ingredients against blue light: In vivo and in vitro evidence. Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology (2024).

• Ma Y. et 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).