The scientific evidence regarding whether LED lights damage human eyes is contested. Certain peer-reviewed studies indicate that blue-rich LED emissions can induce reactive oxygen species, cytotoxicity, or diminish contrast sensitivity with prolonged exposure, while other studies and official assessments find LEDs to be safe under normal viewing conditions or report no statistically significant toxic effects on specific retinal cells.
Abstract Our eyes are regularly exposed to ultraviolet (UV) and blue light emitting diode (LED) light-based devices. However, the blue light induces macular degeneration, optic nerve crush, eye strain, and increases reactive oxygen species, which negatively influence eye-related cells (photoreceptor and retinal pigmented epithelial cells). UV light is also harmful to humans. It induces photokeratitis, cataract, and ocular surface squamous neoplasia. Here, we present carbon dot films with different carbon dot contents, prepared by a simple method. The films exhibit strong UV and blue light absorption. The transmittance of carbon dot films is >70% in the visible region (>500 nm). The UV light blocking ratio of commercial blue blocking filter and carbon dot film using UV LED chips is 94.1% and 95.9% (40 wt%), respectively. The blue light blocking ratio of commercial blue blocking filter and carbon dot film using blue LED chips is 10.2% and 82.3% (40 wt%), respectively. These results indicate that the prepared carbon dot films have a UV blocking rate similar to that of commercial blue blocking filters and a much better blue blocking rate than commercial blue blocking filters. Therefore, they can be effectively used as UV and blue blocking films in various applications.
age is spread out over an increasingly large area of the retina because the eye will not remain fixed and staring at it, but will move around. So in fact, looking at lights longer does not necessarily pose a greater risk, because the eye will normally roam and blink, reducing the radiant energy that reaches each part of the retina.
The blue light component of the optical emission of LED lights is similar to an incandescent lamp, but the infrared emission will be greatly reduced or absent. This might influence the normal bioprocesses in humans and is still being investigated.
3.2. Are there any special concerns about the use of LED lighting in streetlights and vehicles?
Many street lights and other street fixtures now use LED lighting, mainly because it is energy efficient. However, poor quality LED lighting can appear harsh or can induce glare or scattering effects. The brightness of lighting should be appropriate to its use, and LED street lights do not need to be so bright as to replicate daylight, but should provide soft lighting for security and safety. Motorways might require brighter lighting than residential roads as well. The blueness of an optical radiation source like LEDs is often measured by its correlated colour temperature (CCT). The higher the CCT, the more blue-rich it is and the harsher and brighter it appears. However, this metric can provide misleading results for some LED sources.
As good lighting practice, high luminance LED lights should be diffused or shielded from being looked at directly to avoid glare. Some LED street lights have exposed LED elements that can be seen by road users within their normal field of view, such as when they are looking ahead. This may make viewers instinctively look away from the light source if it is too bright or have difficulty seeing the area near the light source.
Vehicle LED lights, particularly daylight running lights and headlights, can be a source of glare. They might also produce more glare when it is fog
<h4>Aim</h4>To measure the contrast sensitivity (CS) using computer-based Chart2020 software pre- and post-white light exposure with and without blue-blocking lenses (BBLs).<h4>Methods</h4>The study included participants aged 18 to 25y (<i>n</i>=30 eyes), where baseline CS was measured before the experiment. Following this, the participants were exposed to two white light-emitting diodes (LEDs; 450 lx each), placed at a 45-degree angle from the participant's eye and 80 cm from the light source. All participants were randomly divided into three groups (BBL1- Placebo lens, BBL2- Crizal Prevencia, BBL3- Duravision) by sequential randomisation, which was double-blinded. Post-light exposure, the CS was measured monocularly with a calibrated computer-based CS Chart-2020 software at different log units.<h4>Results</h4>CS measured using Chart-2020 software at 0.8, 1.5, 6, 12, and 18 cpd pre- and post-white LED exposure with and without BBLs showed a significant difference (<i>P</i><0.05) in contrast threshold and log contrast at 6 cpd and 18 cpd (<i>P</i><0.05) and showed no significant differences in 0.8, 1.5, 12 cpd (<i>P</i>>0.05).<h4>Conclusion</h4>This study shows that exposure to white LEDs can diminish CS, while BBLs may ameliorate these negative effects.
in human corneal epithelial cells. Oxidative damage and potential cell death contribute to inflammation in the eye and the development of dry eyes. Blue
The blue light spectrum, characterized by wavelengths between 400 and 500 nanometers, has a broad impact on human health, influencing numerous physiological processes in the human body. Although blue light is essential for regulating circadian rhythms, improving alertness, and supporting cognitive function, its widespread presence has raised worries about its possible effects on general well-being
The blue light spectrum, characterized by wavelengths between 400 and 500 nanometers, has a broad impact on human health, influencing numerous physiological processes in the human body. Although blue light is essential for regulating circadian rhythms, improving alertness, and supporting cognitive function, its widespread presence has raised worries about its possible effects on general well-being.
Prolonged exposure to isolated blue light poses hazards to the well-being of the eye and may cause symptoms like dry eyes, weariness, and blurred vision. As our dependence on digital devices and artificial lighting increases, it is crucial to understand the complex pathways of the blue light spectrum that affect biological processes. To reduce the hazards of blue light…
The hygienic aspects of the transport illumination and the risks of the negative impact of LED lighting on the health of operators, drivers and passengers have been investigated. The transport illumination is a subject of the longitudinal research of the light effect of the beam and signal lights on driver’s reaction and dazzle. The study of the vehicles’ light effect on passengers’ health was not carried out because for the illuminating of the passenger compartments the incandescent bulbs were used, the characteristics of which are well known. Increasing of the duration of trips, their intensity and the replacement of incandescent lamps to LED lamps makes these studies more urgent. Particular attention is drawn on the fact that the transport system transports millions of passengers and children who are regularly exposed to excessive doses of blue light. The blue light time exposure is more than an hour per trip within the city and more than 5 hours during travel between the cities. The specialists of N.M. Emanuel Institute of Biochemical Physics RAS have indicated that modern white LEDs have expressed emission band in blue spectrum 440-460 nm that is entirely attributable to the spectrum of action of retinal photochemical damage and its pigment epithelium. Such extensive emission poses a hazard to the eyes of children and adolescents, because their crystalline lenses are almost twice as transparent in the dark-blue and blue spectrum area than those in adults. Retinal photoch
<h4>Introduction</h4>The combination of surgical endoillumination and vital dyes has been associated with phototoxicity and retinal damage, despite vital dyes being mainly considered safe. Based on this perspective, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of lutein-based blue dyes (LBBDs) on human retinal pigmented epithelial (ARPE-19) cells and their combination with surgical light exposure.<h4>Methods</h4>ARPE-19 cells were exposed to LBBDs and/or xenon/LED light according to the following experimental design: phase I, exposure to LBBDs only; phase II, exposure to lights only; phase III, single sequential exposure to LBBDs and xenon/LED light; and phase IV, double sequential exposure to LBBDs and xenon/LED light. ATPlite and reactive oxygen species (ROS) detection assays were used to assess the impact on cell viability and ROS production, respectively.<h4>Results</h4>No cytotoxic effect was detected following the exposure to LBBDs for 5 min. LED and xenon lights elicited a cytotoxic effect and an overproduction of ROS for an exposure time of ≥5 min. The ROS overproduction following 5-min exposure of ARPE-19 cells to both LED and xenon lights was significantly (<i>p</i> < 0.05) counteracted by pre-treatment with LBBDs. Finally, after double sequential exposure to LBBDs and LED/xenon lights, 2% LBBD induced a significant (<i>p</i> < 0.05) reduction in ROS production compared to both LED/xenon exposure and 1% LBBD/light exposure.<h4>Discussion</h4>These findings demonstrated the primary role of light-induced damage as a primary contributing factor to potential retinal damage following peeling procedures. LBBDs provided a protective effect against light-induced oxidative damage, highlighting their potential role in enhancing the safety profile of staining in retinal surgery.
To compare the possible toxic effects of three light sources used in vitreoretinal endoillumination systems; halogen, xenon, and light-emitting diode (LED) on retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cell cultures, after two different exposure times.ARPE-19 human RPE cell cultures were exposed to halogen, xenon, and LED light sources at a distance of 1.5 cm for 30 and 60 min with equal lumen output levels. Cells in the control group were not exposed. RPE cell cultures were compared in terms of cell viability, DNA damage, apoptosis rate, and IL-1ß, IL-6, and TNF- α levels.The halogen light group showed significantly more DNA damage, higher TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6 levels, and lower viable cell count at 30 min compared to the control group. The rates of early and late apoptosis were also significantly higher at 60 min. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the parameters between the xenon and LED light sources and the control group at 30 or 60 min.New generation lights, xenon, and LED, seem to be safe in terms of RPE cells. Halogen light may cause toxic effects on RPE cells when used for a long time with maximal power output.
Everything we examined (7)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.