Beyond UV: Substantiating Visible Light, Infrared and Antioxidant Claims
“Blue light protection”, “infrared defence” and “antioxidant shield” are increasingly common sunscreen claims. Dr Leslie Laquieze explains what evidence each one needs, and why none of them can stand in for SPF, UVA or water-resistance testing.
By Dr Leslie Laquieze, PharmD, MSc, PhD, MBA, Expert Member, Australian Sunscreen Council
Science increasingly recognises that the skin responds to more than ultraviolet radiation. That creates genuine opportunities for innovation, and a genuine risk of claims running ahead of evidence. Claims beyond regulatory UV protection belong to separate evidence domains, and each must be supported on the final product.
Visible light: real effects, no agreed test method
In 2026, an international expert panel published an International modified Delphi consensus statement on visible light photoprotection in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology (Lim HW et al.). The panel states that visible light “is now known to contribute to numerous cutaneous responses, such as post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, and play a role in melasma and some photodermatoses.” Critically, it also states that “unlike UVR, no standard methods have been agreed upon for assessing VL photoprotection.” The panel’s 27 consensus statements recommend a standardised methodological approach to guide future research, clinical practice and product development.
A 2026 systematic review by Rodríguez-Luna and colleagues in Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine found that natural compounds mitigated visible-light-induced oxidative stress and pigmentation pathways in preclinical studies, and that some formulations improved erythema and pigmentation outcomes clinically. However, “considerable heterogeneity was observed in irradiation protocols, outcome measures, and study designs, precluding quantitative meta-analysis,” and the authors call for “standardized phototesting protocols and well-designed clinical trials.”
A defensible hierarchy for visible-light claims is therefore: defined spectral screening (for example, the 400–500 nm and 400–700 nm bands); objective biological measurement; and confirmation on the final product in the skin phototypes and conditions relevant to the claim. No single protection threshold, such as a percentage of high-energy visible light blocked, should be treated as a universal standard.
Evidence strategy by claim type
Domain | Evidence strategy | Boundary |
Visible light and high-energy visible light | Defined wavelength bands; final-product spectra; diffuse reflectance or colorimetry; in-vivo pigmentation for stronger claims. | No validated universal threshold. Pigment, iron oxide or antioxidant content alone does not prove the claim. |
Infrared-A | Controlled dose and spectrum; markers such as MMP-1, oxidative stress, inflammation or melanogenesis; ex-vivo or clinical confirmation. | UV filters do not automatically provide infrared-A protection. |
Antioxidant | Chemical assays for screening; cellular or ex-vivo confirmation; relevant biomarkers on the final product. | Chemical radical-scavenging does not prove clinical photoprotection. |
Photostability | Spectra and/or filter assay before and after irradiation; degradants; retained SPF and UVA. | An initial static SPF does not prove maintained performance. |
Tolerance | Patch and use testing, eye-sting testing and target-use testing by population and body site. | Adapt for children, face, sport, spray and sensitive skin. |
What the published studies show, and do not show
Cellular and ex-vivo models can identify oxidative stress, melanogenesis, inflammation and gene-expression responses to visible light and infrared-A. Preclinical work by Eberlin and colleagues (IFSCC Magazine, 2016) evaluated the effects of UV, infrared-A and visible light on melanogenesis and endothelin-1 in human melanocyte cultures, and Facchini and colleagues (IFSCC Magazine, 2019) analysed transcriptome changes in human skin exposed to infrared-A. These models demonstrate biological plausibility. They do not automatically demonstrate a broad clinical benefit or regulatory acceptance.
A 2025 study by Fonseca and colleagues in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology combined human skin explants with a clinical trial of a multifunctional sunscreen containing nanoencapsulated antioxidants. It reported that the formulation “prevented UV-induced reactive oxygen species (ROS) production” in the preclinical model and was “well-tolerated by both skin and eyes” in the clinical study. This is an example of the layered approach this article recommends, with the benefit claim limited to what was actually measured.
Plant extracts are a common source of over-claiming. In a study by Cefali and colleagues in AAPS PharmSciTech, an emulsion containing nanoparticles loaded with flavonoid-rich plant extracts achieved an in-vitro SPF of 2.3 ± 0.4, although it was photostable and had a critical wavelength of 387 nm. Antioxidant or botanical ingredients may add value, but they are not a substitute for an adequate UV filter system.
The rule that matters
Extended claims may be relevant and valuable. They must be proportionate, supported on the final product, and clearly separated from SPF, UVA, broad-spectrum and water-resistance requirements. They can never replace that core evidence.
Disclosure: Dr Laquieze leads Kosmoscience Europe. Some studies cited in this article, including Fonseca et al. (2025), include researchers affiliated with the Kosmoscience Group.
Sources
· Lim HW et al., “International modified Delphi consensus statement on visible light photoprotection”, J Invest Dermatol, 2026;146(8):2094–2104: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42101389/
· Rodríguez-Luna A et al., Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed, 2026;42(5):e70113: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phpp.70113
· Fonseca AP et al., J Cosmet Dermatol, 2025;24(6):e70282: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40536111/
· Cefali LC et al., AAPS PharmSciTech, 2019;20: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1208/s12249-018-1217-7
· Eberlin S et al., IFSCC Magazine, 2016: https://www.academia.edu/30049577/Preclinical_Evaluation_of_the_effect_of_IR_A_and_VL_on_the_melanogenisis_IFSCC_Magazine_2_2016
· Facchini G et al., “Transcriptome analysis of human skin exposed to infrared-A radiation”, IFSCC Magazine, 2019 (reference file supplied by the author)
About the Author
Dr Leslie Laquieze (PharmD, MSc, PhD, MBA) is a pharmacist-scientist and international expert in sunscreen testing, photoprotection, skin pharmacology and dermocosmetic claim substantiation. An expert member of the Australian Sunscreen Council, she has led Kosmoscience Europe since 2018, supporting the evaluation, substantiation and regulatory positioning of cosmetic and dermatological products across international markets.
This article reflects the opinion of Dr Leslie Laquieze. Readers are recommended to seek expert legal advice on all issues discussed.
