The harms caused by ultraviolet (UV) and blue light to eyes are attracting momentous concern due to growing exposure to artificial illumination and modern IT devices. Herein, a simple and eco-friendly adsorption approach was employed to integrate curcumin, a natural bioactive compound, into the cellulose substrate for the development of flexible and biodegradable filters capable of blocking harmful light. The curcumin/cellulose films demonstrate excellent UV-screening competence and photostability, with UV-A and UV-B screening ratios ranging from 92.8 % to 100 % and 89.2 % to 100 %, respectively. The films could block >96 % of blue light in the wavelength range of 400-500 nm. Meanwhile, the films maintain high transmittance (85.2-89.4 %) and low haze (2.0-2.7 %). The films can efficiently block blue light emanated from sunlight, light-emitting diodes, lighting systems, computer and mobile phone screens. Encouragingly, the incorporation of curcumin led to a substantial increase in the water contact angle, elevating it from 41.6 to 81.3°. Furthermore, the films exhibit excellent antimicrobial properties, biodegradability, and tensile strength in excess of 72 MPa. Therefore, these films fabricated entirely from natural resources have the potential to achieve practical applications such as food packaging and spectacle lens, especially suitable for electronic screen protectors.

BACKGROUND An intraocular lens (IOL) is a synthetic lens that is surgically implanted within the eye following removal of the crystalline lens, during cataract surgery. While all modern IOLs attenuate the transmission of ultra-violet (UV) light, some IOLs, called blue-blocking or blue-light filtering IOLs, also reduce short-wavelength visible light transmission. The rationale for blue-light filtering IOLs derives primarily from cell culture and animal studies, which suggest that short-wavelength visible light can induce retinal photoxicity. Blue-light filtering IOLs have been suggested to impart retinal protection and potentially prevent the development and progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). We sought to investigate the evidence relating to these suggested benefits of blue-light filtering IOLs, and to consider any potential adverse effects. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of blue-light filtering IOLs compared with non-blue-light filtering IOLs, with respect to providing protection to macular health and function. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 25 October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adult participants undergoing cataract extraction, where a blue-light filtering IOL was compared with an equivalent non-blue-light filtering IOL. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The prespecified primary outcome was the change in distance best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), as a continuous outcome, between baseline and 12 months of follow-up. Prespecified secondary outcomes included postoperative contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, macular pigment optical density (MPOD), proportion of eyes with a pathological finding at the macula (including, but not limited to the development or progression of AMD, or both), daytime alertness, reaction time and patient satisfaction. We evaluated findings related to ocular and systemic adverse effects.Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, extracted data from eligible RCTs and judged the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We reached a consensus on any disagreements by discussion. Where appropriate, we pooled data relating to outcomes and used random-effects or fixed-effect models for the meta-analyses. We summarised the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS We included 51 RCTs from 17 different countries, although most studies either did not report relevant outcomes, or provided data in a format that could not be extracted. Together, the included studies considered the outcomes of IOL implantation in over 5000 eyes. The number of participants ranged from 13 to 300, and the follow-up period ranged from one month to five years. Only two of the studies had a trial registry record and no studies referred to a published protocol. We did not judge any of the studies to have a low risk of bias in all seven domains. We judged approximately two-thirds of the studies to have a high risk of bias in domains relating to 'blinding of participants and personnel' (performance bias) and 'blinding of outcome assessment' (detection bias).We found with moderate certainty, that distance BCVA with a blue-light filtering IOL, at six to 18 months postoperatively, and measured in logMAR, was not clearly different to distance BCVA with a non-blue-light filtering IOL (mean difference (MD) -0.01 logMAR, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.02, P = 0.48; 2 studies, 131 eyes).There was very low-certainty evidence relating to any potential inter-intervention difference for the proportion of eyes that developed late-stage AMD at three years of follow-up, or any stage of AMD at one year of follow-up, as data derived from one trial and two trials

Aims: With the widespread use of digital devices and LED-based lighting, exposure to artificial blue light has significantly increased in recent years. This has raised concerns about potential retinal damage, disruption of circadian rhythms, and digital eye strain. At the same time, the market for blue light-blocking interventions, such as specialty eyewear and screen filters, has expanded rapidly. The aims of this review is to assess current scientific evidence on the biological effects of blue light on retinal health, evaluate the effectiveness of blue light-blocking strategies, and clarify common misconceptions. Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2025 were included. The review focused on studies examining the retinal effects of blue light exposure, the pathophysiological mechanisms involved (including oxidative stress and phototoxicity), and clinical trials evaluating the use of blue light filters and digital ergonomics in reducing visual fatigue and sleep disruption. Results: Although experimental models suggest that high-intensity blue light may contribute to retinal oxidative stress, current clinical evidence does not support a direct link between typical screen exposure and long-term retinal damage. Blue light-blocking glasses show limited efficacy in reducing eye strain or improving sleep in the general population. Misconceptions about blue light toxicity persist, often driven by commercial claims rather than scientific validation. Conclusions: Blue light from screens poses minimal risk to retinal integrity under normal use conditions. Preventive strategies such as screen breaks, proper lighting, and digital ergonomics appear more effective than blue-blocking products. Health education efforts should focus on evidence-based practices rather than marketing-driven solutions.

Exposure to blue light has seriously increased in our environment since the arrival of light emitting diodes (LEDs) and, in recent years, the proliferation of digital devices rich in blue light. This raises some questions about its potential deleterious effects on eye health. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an update on the ocular effects of blue light and to discuss the efficiency of methods of protection and prevention against potential blue light-induced ocular injury. The search of relevant English articles was conducted in PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar databases until December 2022. Blue light exposure provokes photochemical reactions in most eye tissues, in particular the cornea, the lens, and the retina. In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that certain exposures to blue light (depending on the wavelength or intensity) can cause temporary or permanent damage to some structures of the eye, especially the retina. However, currently, there is no evidence that screen use and LEDs in normal use are deleterious to the human retina. Regarding protection, there is currently no evidence of a beneficial effect of blue blocking lenses for the prevention of eye diseases, in particular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). In humans, macular pigments (composed of lutein and zeaxanthin) represent a natural protection by filtering blue light, and can be increased through increased intake from foods or food supplements. These nutrients are associated with lower risk for AMD and cataract. Antioxidants such as vitamins C, E, or zinc might also contribute to the prevention of photochemical ocular damage by preventing oxidative stress. Currently, there is no evidence that LEDs in normal use at domestic intensity levels or in screen devices are retinotoxic to the human eye. However, the potential toxicity of long-term cumulative exposure and the dose-response effect are currently unknown.

'Blue-light filtering', or 'blue-light blocking', spectacle lenses filter ultraviolet radiation and varying portions of short-wavelength visible light from reaching the eye. Various blue-light filtering lenses are commercially available. Some claims exist that they can improve visual performance with digital device use, provide retinal protection, and promote sleep quality. We investigated clinical trial evidence for these suggested effects, and considered any potential adverse effects. To assess the effects of blue-light filtering lenses compared with non-blue-light filtering lenses, for improving visual performance, providing macular protection, and improving sleep quality in adults. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; containing the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, with no date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 March 2022. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adult participants, where blue-light filtering spectacle lenses were compared with non-blue-light filtering spectacle lenses. Primary outcomes were the change in visual fatigue score and critical flicker-fusion frequency (CFF), as continuous outcomes, between baseline and one month of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity, discomfort glare, proportion of eyes with a pathological macular finding, colour discrimination, proportion of participants with reduced daytime alertness, serum melatonin levels, subjective sleep quality, and patient satisfaction with their visual performance. We evaluated findings related to ocular and systemic adverse effects. We followed standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 (RoB 1) tool. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We included 17 RCTs, with sample sizes ranging from five to 156 participants, and intervention follow-up periods from less than one day to five weeks. About half of included trials used a parallel-arm design; the rest adopted a cross-over design. A variety of participant characteristics was represented across the studies, ranging from healthy adults to individuals with mental health and sleep disorders. None of the studies had a low risk of bias in all seven Cochrane RoB 1 domains. We judged 65% of studies to have a high risk of bias due to outcome assessors not being masked (detection bias) and 59% to be at high risk of bias of performance bias as participants and personnel were not masked. Thirty-five per cent of studies were pre-registered on a trial registry. We did not perform meta-analyses for any of the outcome measures, due to lack of available quantitative data, heterogenous study populations, and differences in intervention follow-up periods. There may be no difference in subjective visual fatigue scores with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, at less than one week of follow-up (low-certainty evidence). One RCT reported no difference between intervention arms (mean difference (MD) 9.76 units (indicating worse symptoms), 95% confidence interval (CI) -33.95 to 53.47; 120 participants). Further, two studies (46 participants, combined) that measured visual fatigue scores reported no significant difference between intervention arms. There may be little to no difference in CFF with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, measured at less than one day of follow-up (low-certainty evidence). One study reported no significant difference between intervention arms (MD - 1.13 Hz lower (indicating poorer performance), 95% CI - 3.00 to 0.74; 120 participants). Another study reported a less negative change in CFF (indicating less visual fatigue) with high- compared to low-blue-light filtering

wearing sunglasses that block ultraviolet radiation (UV) whenever a person is in the sunlight to protect the eyes from UV and blue light, which can cause several Sunglasses or sun glasses (informally called shades or sunnies; more names below) are a form of protective eyewear designed primarily to prevent bright sunlight and high-energy visible light from damaging or discomforting the eyes. They can sometimes also function as a visual aid, as variously termed spectacles or glasses exist, featuring lenses that are colored, polarized or darkened. In the earl Sunglasses offer protection against excessive exposure to light, including its visible and invisible components. The most widespread protection is against ultraviolet radiation, which can cause short-term and long-term ocular problems such as photokeratitis (snow blindness), cataracts, pterygium, and various forms of eye cancer. Medical experts advise the public on the importance of wearing sunglasses to protect the eyes from UV; for adequate protection, experts recommend sunglasses that reflect or filter out 99% or more of UVA and UVB light, with wavelengths up to 400 nm. Sunglasses that meet this requirement are often labeled as "UV400". This is slightly more protection than the widely used standard of the European Union (see below), which requires that 95% of the radiation up to only 380 nm must be reflected or filtered out. Sunglasses are not sufficient to protect the eyes against permanent harm from looking directly at the Sun, even during a solar eclipse. Special eyewear known as solar viewers are required for direct viewing of the sun. This type of eyewear can filter out UV radiation harmful to the eyes. More recently, high-energy visible light (HEV) has been implicated as a cause of age-related macular degeneration; before, debates had already existed as to whether "blue blocking" or amber tinted lenses may have a protective effect. Some manufacturers already design glasses to block blue light; the insurance company Suva, which covers most Swiss employees, asked eye experts around Charlotte Remé (ETH Zürich) to develop norms for blue blocking, leading to a recommended minimum of 95% of the blue light. Sunglasses are especially important for children, as their ocular lenses are thought to transmit far more HEV light than adults (lenses "yellow" with age). The only way to assess the protection of sunglasses is to have the lenses measured, either by the manufacturer or by a properly equipped optician. Several standards for sunglasses (see below) allow a general classification of the UV protection (but not the blue light protection), and manufacturers often indicate simply that the sunglasses meet the requirements of a specific standard rather than publish… Sh…