The potential role of UV and blue light from the sun, artificial lighting, and electronic devices in melanogenesis and oxidative stress

2022 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 910

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2022

Study typereview

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

The potential role of UV and blue light from the sun, artificial lighting, and electronic devices in melanogenesis and oxidative stress Enrique Navarrete de Gálvez, José Aguilera, Alba Solis, María Victoria de Gálvez, José Ramón de Andrés, Enrique Herrera-Ceballos, Alfonso Gago-Calderon. The potential role of UV and blue light from the sun, artificial lighting, and electronic devices in melanogenesis and oxidative stress. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2022 Feb 4;228:112405. doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2022.112405 article Highlights • LED technology is being increasingly used in electronic devices and to provide both indoor and outdoor lighting. • Normal daily dose of blue light emitted by LED devices is less than 5% compared to sun for inducing skin pigmentation. • Long time LED overexposure as during the COVID-19 lockdown enhance risk factors for hyperpigmentation. Abstract Our exposure to blue light from artificial sources such as indoor lights (mainly light-emitting diodes [LEDs]) and electronic devices (e.g., smartphones, computer monitors, and television screens), has increased in recent years, particularly during the recent coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown. This radiation has been associated to skin damage across its potential in generating reactive oxygen species in both the epidermis and the dermis, skin water imbalances and of potential activating melanin production. These circumstances make it important to determine whether current blue light exposure levels under artificial illumination and electronic devices exposure can cause the previously indicated disorders as compared to solar UV and visible radiation in a typical summer day. Blue light accounted for 25% of the sun's rays, approximately 30% of radiation emitted by electronic devices, and approximately from 6% to 40% of that emitted by indoor lights. The reference equations showed that the sun was the main source of effective irradiance for immediate and persistent pigmentation as well as for potential oxidative stress in our skin. Effective blue light exposure to artificial devices is significantly lower than the solar contribution. However, its contribution must be considered as accumulative dose effect, and especially in people with hypersensitivity promoting skin hyperpigmentation. Conclusions Exposure to blue light has health consequences, including photoaging and hyperpigmentation. LED technology is being increasingly used to provide both indoor and outdoor lighting and it emits a considerable proportion of blue light. The effective irradiance for PPD, IPD and oxidative stress emitted by sun and the different artificial light devices calculated for an office worker show that the contribution of sources other than the sun to the effects of PPD and IPD is less than 1% and less than 5% for the case of oxidative stress. Despite the low effective irradiance emitted by electronic devices and artificial light compared to solar radiation, that could lead to think no photo damaging effect of artificial devices, we must consider that the responses of the skin are a consequence of the integration of all daily exposure to light and all sources of radiation. Blue lights are potentially harmful to our skin in the long terms. In any case, in the absence of sunlight, artificial sources lack the potential to induce photodamage to the skin under normal use conditions, with the exception of photosensitive patients as well as high skin phototypes. These people must protect themselves when exposed to sources of blue light.... Open access paper: sciencedirect.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typereview

Effect directionmixed

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The paper compares effective irradiance from sun versus artificial sources (indoor LED lighting and electronic devices) for pigmentation endpoints (IPD/PPD) and potential oxidative stress. It reports the sun as the main source of effective irradiance; contributions from non-solar sources for an office worker were calculated as <1% for PPD/IPD and <5% for oxidative stress, though cumulative exposure and photosensitive/high-phototype individuals may be more susceptible over the long term.

Outcomes measured

melanogenesis
skin pigmentation (immediate pigmentation/IPD; persistent pigmentation/PPD)
oxidative stress
reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation
photoaging
hyperpigmentation
skin water imbalances

Limitations

Study design and methods are not fully described in the abstract (e.g., whether calculations are based on specific measurement datasets or modeled assumptions).
No sample size or participant characteristics are provided in the abstract.
Findings emphasize calculated effective irradiance and potential effects; clinical outcome evidence under real-world use is not detailed in the abstract.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "artificial lighting and electronic devices (LEDs; smartphones, computer monitors, television screens) and sun (UV/visible/blue light)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "melanogenesis",
    "skin pigmentation (immediate pigmentation/IPD; persistent pigmentation/PPD)",
    "oxidative stress",
    "reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation",
    "photoaging",
    "hyperpigmentation",
    "skin water imbalances"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The paper compares effective irradiance from sun versus artificial sources (indoor LED lighting and electronic devices) for pigmentation endpoints (IPD/PPD) and potential oxidative stress. It reports the sun as the main source of effective irradiance; contributions from non-solar sources for an office worker were calculated as <1% for PPD/IPD and <5% for oxidative stress, though cumulative exposure and photosensitive/high-phototype individuals may be more susceptible over the long term.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Study design and methods are not fully described in the abstract (e.g., whether calculations are based on specific measurement datasets or modeled assumptions).",
    "No sample size or participant characteristics are provided in the abstract.",
    "Findings emphasize calculated effective irradiance and potential effects; clinical outcome evidence under real-world use is not detailed in the abstract."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "blue light",
    "UV",
    "LED",
    "electronic devices",
    "indoor lighting",
    "melanogenesis",
    "hyperpigmentation",
    "photoaging",
    "oxidative stress",
    "reactive oxygen species",
    "IPD",
    "PPD",
    "effective irradiance",
    "cumulative exposure"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2022.112405
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library