Vanessa 17 Jan 2021 Uncategorized

LED Mask Comparison and a Deep Dive into Low Level Light Therapy (LLLT)

Note: This post was originally published in Jan 2021, but I frequently update it with new masks, updated research and new discount codes.

The latest update was 4/10/2024

Hi! This is a super deep dive all about the science behind LED light therapy AND a comparison and information about various LED masks. So if you are looking for the best LED face mask, this post will hopefully be helpful.

Although this is a LED mask comparison post, I will never be able to cover all of the masks that are out there. So the masks included are not the only ones available. But I hope that with the information in this post will empower everyone to use what you know to do your own research. I can’t tell you if a mask is “worth it”. But I can help you understand how to evaluate masks and to better understand what kind of results you might expect based on what has been found. But it is important to remember that science is a process not a conclusion. So just because there isn’t evidence to support something, doesn’t mean new evidence won’t emerge. But this post will summarize most of what the evidence suggests so far.

To help you navigate this post, here is a table of contents.

My Experience with LED Devices

Before jumping into this super long post, I thought it might be helpful to give you some background about myself. I am a doctorally trained social scientist. I work for a non-profit research institute and I design and conduct studies for government agencies–usually focused on the development and testing of risk and health communication messages and designing and evaluating behavior change intervention. My training and love of experimental studies is why I love doing split-face comparisons and before and after testing of skincare products. At my core, I am a researcher who is always curious to dig deeper and investigate things. I love reading journal articles and digging into data to better understand something. So when I started to see people use LED masks a couple years ago I slowly started to look into what they really do. Then, in 2020 I was sent the Light Salon Boost Mask by the brand and used it consistently (usually about 3-4 days a week) for the past year. (As someone who has NEVER been able to stick with a device consistently, I was very impressed with how convenient and effortless this is to use). So that’s enough about me 🙂

Results I've seen from using LED masks for over a year

Before getting into the science of it all, I wanted to share what improvements I saw after using the Light Salon LED for a year. I saw great improvements in my skin, like reduction in redness, quicker healing after breakouts or injuries, and after about 6 months it even seemed like my skin was firmer and wrinkles weren’t as noticeable or as crepey. Even the parentheses around my mouth don’t bug me as much anymore.

But this is just anecdotal evidence. Since I couldn’t do a controlled before and after because I use various products to help with my skin, it is impossible to pinpoint how much the LED device contributed to those results compared to the other things I do for my skin (like wear sunscreen, use a retinoid, and use other skincare products).

Therefore, I wanted to research the specs of the mask I used, see how it compared to other masks on the market, and to research the science behind low level light therapy with LED lights to find out what the research REALLY says.

I noticed that various companies were making some pretty big claims and it seemed like they were claiming that different wavelengths and lights could do a ton of different things–it seemed too good to be true (Spoiler: A lot of the claims aren’t supported) so I wanted to see for myself what evidence was out there. And that brings us to this post.

The Science Behind Low Level Light Therapy (LLLT)

Low-level laser (or light) therapy (LLLT), also called phototherapy or photobiomodulation (PBM), refers to the use of photons to alter biological activity (Sawhney & Hamblin, 2016). PBM research dates back to the 1960s and has now developed into a therapeutic procedure that is used in three main ways: to reduce inflammation; to promote healing; and to treat pain. Newer LED devices also support a role for photorejuvenation and even hair growth (Lloyd et al. 2018). (Note: It was too much to cover hair growth research for this post. But I hope to write a separate post on that later).

I use it to reduce inflammation, promote healing, and promote photo-rejuvenation (think of that as a catch-all phrase that captures all the signs and symptoms of skin aging, like skin wrinkling, rougher skin, thin/crepey skin, reduced elasticity [when skin looks saggy], and uneven skin tone.)

At the end of the post I will get into how LLLT works for those that are interested, but the 10,000 foot view is that LEDs emit photons, those light photons are delivered into our skin where it’s absorbed by our cells. When it is absorbed, the cells are photoactivated. Think of it as being energized. With increased energy, every cell, organ and tissue in the body performs better, including your skin. It is like it helps our cells function as if they have had a full night’s sleep and a well-balanced breakfast.

When cells are in a photoactivated state one or more of three things can happen:

If the cell is damaged or compromised, it will repair itself, or be repaired.
If the cell has a function, e.g., collagen and elastin synthesis by fibroblasts, it will perform that function more efficiently.
if proliferation is required, the cell will proliferate.

LLLT is referred to as “low level” because it uses light at lower power densities (<500 mW/cm2)—more on those terms next.

The main benefits seen in clinical trials of LLLT for skin rejuvenation (in other words, excluding research focused specifically on inflammation) are:

reduction of wrinkles and fine lines
improvements in radiance
improvements in texture
improvements in skin tone (Note that only a couple studies have specifically measured pigmentation or melasma, most ask for subjective assessments of “improved skin tone”)
increased elasticity (less evidence for this compared to the the above benefits)

Biopsies have shown increased collagen and elastin production that would account for many of these benefits.

LLLT is different from Intense pulsed light (IPL) or KTP lasers which use MUCH higher power densities. Those lasers also use various wavelengths, but that research shouldn't be confused with this research because although it may use the same wavelengths they are delivered at very different strengths.

If you want a Deep Dive Into the Empirical Evidence, click here to go to the end of the blog post where I get into even more nerdy details.

Key Parameters: What you really want to look for when assessing masks

In LLLT, the following parameters are important (in order of importance):

the wavelength must be correct for the target, with the LEDs emitting a very narrow band around the rated wavelength (e.g., within ±10 nm or so)
The irradiance (power density) must be adequate
The dose (energy density) must be sufficient.

Despite almost 5,000 peer reviewed publications, both in vitro and clinical, LLLT still faces skepticism and has varied findings. The wide range of parameters that can be applied (wavelength, irradiance, treatment duration, and repetition) in some cases has led to contradictory results.

Wavelengths Used

The wavelength is the most important single factor when attempting to achieve a photoreaction, because without absorption, you can't achieve a reaction.

Calderhead, 2018

Wavelengths with the Best Evidence to Date

For the most part, you want to look for an LED device that has BOTH red (typically 633nm, but somewhere between 630-660nm) and NIR (look for 820-840nm, with 830nm being the gold standard) in order to have a positive impact on your skin.

From the data of over 30 years of LLLT, two wavelengths have been highlighted as having the greatest effect on the action mechanism of skin cells: 633 nm in the visible red, and 830 nm in the NIR (Calderhead & Omi, 2014).
Red and near-infrared (NIR) lights are known to be especially good for the skin. They reach deeper layers of the skin compared to other types of light. This deep reach helps improve the skin’s structure and appearance, according to research by Avici et al. (2013) and Calderhead & Vasily (2016).
In a review on the efficacy of LED-LLLT, Kim and Calderhead (2011) firmly favor the 830 nm wavelength. Stating “at present, the published literature strongly suggests 830nm for all aspects of wound healing, pain, inti-inflammatory treatment and skin rejuvenation, with a combination of 415nm and 633nm for light-only treatment of active inflammatory acne vulgaris. If the wavelength is not correct, optimum absorption will not occur” (and without absorption there will be no reaction).
Three wavelengths of light that have demonstrated several therapeutic applications are blue (e.g., 415nm), red (e.g., 633nm), and near-infrared (e.g., 830nm) (Ablon, 2018; Kim & Calderhead, 2011; Zheng et al., 2020). (see the end of the post of more information about cautionary information about blue light).
Wavelengths shorter than 600nm tend to scatter, rather than to penetrate deeply into the body tissues. As such, Green and Yellow light have very poor penetration into living tissue and have rarely been studied (but yellow has some limited promise whereas green does not).

Science behind why the wavelengths matter

The body’s reaction to light, known as the photobiological response, depends on how certain elements, called photoacceptors or chromophores, absorb light energy. Chromophores refer to parts of tissues, cells, or their components that light targets at specific wavelengths. This absorption process transforms light into signals that trigger specific biological functions. A key factor influencing how deeply light energy penetrates and how effectively it is absorbed in biological targets is the light’s wavelength (Calderhead & Tanaka, 2017).

LLLT works by directing specific wavelengths of light into the skin, where they are absorbed by cells. Its success largely depends on how much light reaches the intended area (Calderhead, 2016). The effectiveness of the therapy hinges on using the right wavelength to ensure that the light is absorbed by the intended chromophore, a kind of target within the skin, at the right depth. Each type of tissue target absorbs light most effectively at a specific wavelength (Calderhead & Vasily, 2016).

For optimal results, the chosen wavelength should allow the light to penetrate deeply enough into the targeted cells or tissues. While some targets react to a range of wavelengths (about 30–100 nm), most targets in LED phototherapy require more precise wavelengths (Calderhead, 2018).

Let’s break it down by colors: wavelengths correspond to colors like purple/blue (400-495nm), green (500-565nm), yellow (570-590), orange/amber (590-620), red (625-700 nm), and near-infrared (NIR) (800-1200) lights. Each of these colors has its unique way of interacting with our skin. However, not all are equally effective. Shorter wavelengths, such as yellow, green, or purple/blue, often fail to penetrate deeply enough, making their impact superficial.

Different wavelengths have distinct effects in the body due to their unique chromophore targets and varying depths of penetration (Calderhead, 2007). By focusing on a few highly therapeutic wavelengths, LED phototherapy maximizes absorption.

One reason red and NIR are so frequently used in high quality LED devices is because they are within the “optical window” of ideal photobiomodulation (this is sometimes referred to as the “tissue window”). That window is said to be between 610 and 860 (Karu & Kolyakov, 2005). Visible light does not penetrate well in the blue, green, and yellow range (400 nm to 600 nm).

In her 2005 study, Dr. Tiina Karu identified key wavelength ranges, specifically between 610-860 nm, as being particularly effective for phototherapy. This research helps explain why wavelengths shorter than 633 nm, like blue or green light, are not as effectively absorbed by the skin. Dr. Karu, along with Kolyakov, demonstrated the existence of a “tissue window” for phototherapy, which lies between approximately 610 nm (visible red) and 860 nm (near-infrared). These longer wavelengths penetrate and are absorbed by tissues much more effectively compared to wavelengths shorter than 600nm. Wavelengths shorter than 600nm tend to scatter, rather than to penetrate deeply into the body tissues and are heavily absorbed in melanin in the outer layers of skin (epidermis).

More recently, some other researchers argue the optical window extends up to 1100 nm (Lima et al., 2020).

Figures showing wavelength penetration

LED wavelength penetration — From Barolet, D. (2008, December). Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in dermatology. In Seminars in cutaneous medicine and surgery (Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 227-238). No longer published by Elsevier.

From Lima, A. M. C. T., da Silva Sergio, L. P., & da Fonseca, A. D. S. (2020). Photobiomodulation via multiple-wavelength radiations. Lasers in medical science, 35(2), 307-316.

Optimal Tissue Window for Wavelength penetration — From Calderhead, R. G. (2017). Photobiological Basics of Photomedicine: A Work of Art Still in Progress. Medical Lasers; Engineering, Basic Research, and Clinical Application, 6(2), 45-57.

More information about other wavelengths aside from Red and NIR

Avoid a device with wavelengths under 400nm

Researchers have noted that the use of wavelengths in LLLT at 400nm or lower should be used with extreme caution and it is probably best to avoid them (Serrage et al., 2020)

Notes on Blue Wavelengths

Blue light penetrates the skin to a lesser depth (about 1 mm) compared to red light (4–5 mm) or infrared light (5 mm). This limited depth could reduce its effectiveness. The term “blue light” covers wavelengths from 400-495nm, each producing different effects, some beneficial and some potentially harmful. The most supported beneficial wavelength is 415nm.

Some positive effects of blue light:

Blue light doesn’t penetrate deeply, but the 415nm wavelength is effective for treating inflammatory acne. However, it’s not beneficial for whiteheads and blackheads.
Inflammatory acne lesions contain the bacterium P. Acnes, which responds to the 415nm wavelength. While this wavelength can destroy P. Acnes, it doesn’t directly address inflammation. Therefore, combining 415nm blue light with 633nm red light is advised, as red light addresses inflammation and improves effectiveness on non-inflammatory lesions (Greaves et al., 2015).

Some negative side effects of blue light

Unlike red and NIR, Blue light can harm the eyes. Wearing protective eyewear is highly recommended.
Studies have observed unintended hyperpigmentation with wavelengths between 420-443nm (Falcone et al., 2018; Jagdeo et al., 2018; Weinstabl et al., 2011; Kleinpenning et al., 2010). Calderhead (2020) notes that blue light is often used in conjunction with red and/or NIR light to prevent skin darkening.
An animal study found that blue light (430–510 nm) delayed skin barrier recovery, while red light (550–670 nm) sped up recovery (Denda & Fuziwara, 2008).
Blue light can be toxic to various cells, including skin cells, under specific conditions.

Dose Matters with Blue Light:

Low energy blue light (<20 J/cm2) is beneficial, reducing inflammation and stimulating healing (Prado et al., 2022).
High energy blue light (21–50 J/cm2) can be harmful, leading to cell damage and inhibiting healing processes (Prado et al., 2022).

My Thoughts on Blue Light:

I prefer not to use blue light over my entire face to avoid hyperpigmentation risk. Instead, I spot treat acne with a handheld device using appropriate wavelengths (415nm + 633nm). Keep in mind that using a face mask with red and NIR wavelengths can also reduce acne and the associated redness and inflammation–and those wavelengths don’t hold the potential for hyperpigmentation.

If you do go for full mask with red and blue wavelengths, keep in mind that those wavelengths are not intended to prevent acne–only to treat mild to moderate acne (and it isn’t intended for whiteheads and blackheads). AND they are only intended to treat it for a short period of time.

For example, for their Clear mask Omnilux recommends 4, 10-minute treatments per week for 6 weeks and once the 6 weeks are up you are supposed to stop using it. (In the peer reviewed literature, most studies limit treatment to twice weekly for up to 4 weeks.)

Notes on Green wavelengths (500-565 nm, but typically 520nm)

TL;DR: Not a worthwhile wavelength and some recent evidence suggests it can contribute to hyperpigmentation rather than reduce it (He et al, 2023).
For me, if a company includes a green wavelength that is a big red flag because not only do we have no evidence to support it having a beneficial impact on the skin, we do have some evidence that it is poorly absorbed and may even induce hyperpigmentation.
Many companies that include green wavelengths in their mask will claim that it LLLT will “soothe skin” and treat hyperpigmentation and melasma… This is not supported by evidence and I highly doubt these claims.
In my extensive review of the literature, including recent systematic reviews/meta-analysis (Ngoc et al, 2022), I have not found any substantial evidence to support the claim that green wavelengths are effective in treating hyperpigmentation or in providing a soothing effect on the skin, as some companies claim.
What I did come across was an article where the author (De Cordova, 2021) stated that the green wavelength of 530nm “might have some benefit for pigmented epidermal conditions and superficial skin conditions like stretch marks but its use for these conditions has not been proven yet.” Yet, when I went to the article he cited, I found that that reference did not have any empirical evidence to support that claim.
It appears that these companies might be misinterpreting, whether intentionally or not, research focused on high-intensity pulsed LASERS in the green spectrum (around 530nm) used for hyperpigmentation. It’s important to note that IPL (Intense Pulsed Light) or high-intensity green laser treatment differs significantly from green LED photobiomodulation. Therefore, using studies based on entirely different technologies and contexts to promote green LED products is misleading and not scientifically sound

Notes on Yellow Wavelengths (570-590, typically 590nm)

More recently, some LED masks have begun incorporating yellow light (around 585-590nm) alongside red and NIR wavelengths. However, solid evidence supporting yellow light’s benefits is scarce. And some companies get a little too creative with their claims about yellow light (like one company that claimed it “promotes lymphatic drainage, improves cell metabolism, and enhances skin detoxification” all of which are totally unfounded).

Similar to blue light (or any wavelength under 600nm), yellow light has very poor skin penetration.

Calderhead (2017) further explains that red light, particularly at a wavelength of 633 nm, is more effective in skin penetration than yellow light at 590 nm. This effectiveness is due to red light’s lower absorption by melanin, the skin pigment, and oxyhemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying form of hemoglobin in blood. The small wavelength difference between red and yellow light, about 43 nm, significantly impacts how deeply the light penetrates the skin, as the measurement units are logarithmic. In fact, Red and NIR light can go deeper into your skin about a thousand times better than yellow light can.

According to De Cordova (2021), yellow light primarily affects the epidermis, the outer layer of the skin, but doesn’t penetrate well into the dermis, the inner layer. This limits its use in deep skin repair and renewal. However, yellow light is absorbed effectively by blood, making it potentially useful for treating surface-level vascular conditions like rosacea. And it might be good at is working on the surface of skin to help to slow down the production of melanin (the pigment that gives skin its color) which could potentially lighten pigmentation.

The optimism for yellow light comes mainly from a few studies where scientists examine the effect of yellow light on specific skin cells in petri dishes (also referred to as “in vitro” studies). While these studies suggest yellow light could be beneficial, a recent real-world test that used a device similar to what you could use at home, didn’t have the best results. After four months of daily use, people with melasma (those pesky dark patches) noticed only minor improvements.

It’s also important to note that some studies on the benefits of pulsed (versus continuous which is what is used in nearly all at -home LED devices) yellow light, as well as other colors like green, have not been able to be replicated by different researchers. This inconsistency calls into question the reliability of their effectiveness.

So, while yellow light shows theoretical promise, its effectiveness in practice remains to be seen. In contrast, red (633nm) and near-infrared (NIR at 830nm) light have a well-established record in penetrating deeper into the skin and offering tangible benefits, including reducing melasma pigmentation and improving overall skin health. So if you want to explore the use of yellow light, I would use it alongside those.

Bottom line: Personally, I would only be interested in a device that has the 590nm wavelength IF it already offers offering red and NIR light, with a separate yellow light option.

Notes on Wavelengths between 700-780

It’s probably a good idea to stay away from using wavelengths between 700 and 780 nm. This range is generally not effective because it doesn’t match well with what the cytochrome c oxidase (a key molecule in our cells) needs to absorb light. Studies with mice have shown that wavelengths between 700-770 nm don’t really do much (Gupta et al., 2014; Karu, 2010; Wu et al., 2012).

NIR around 1000-1100 (specifically 1072nm)

In the section on the science behind why wavelengths matter, I noted that researchers have claimed that wavelengths above 860nm tend to have more limited penetration because they are being superficially absorbed by the water in our skin.
However, there is a dip in water absorption that lines up with the 1000-1100nm band which may explain why NIR wavelengths in this band are gaining popularity for deep penetration and to have a slightly different tissue target in the cells.
Specifically, 1060-1100nm is located strategically in the band that has a “valley” of improved absorption above 860nm and therefore offers a NIR wavelength with even deeper absorption. So this additional wavelength holds the potential to offer additional benefits for skin rejuvenation.
There aren’t many studies with skin rejuvenation outcomes that I could find on the benefits of 1072 wavelengths—but there has been an increase in studies more recently on wavelengths in the 1060-1100 band. And there are a few published studies that show the potential for this wavelength to offer significant benefits to the skin.
One study (Stirling et al. 2005) was a randomized prospective double-blind placebo controlled self-reporting study evaluated effects of once daily treatment over 6-8 weeks with 1072 nm on wrinkles fine lines and undereye bags. They found statistically significant evidence that 1072 can help reduce fine lines and under-eye bag (but the outcomes were self-reports of improvements. For example, 52% said their complexion improved (versus 20% in the control group) and 46% said it improved their under eye bags (versus 4% that said that in the control group).
What I find most promising are the studies that don’t focus on skin rejuvenation and instead look at outcomes like wound healing–finding that the 1072 wavelength can reduce healing time (as cited in Ngoc et al., 2022)
My takeaway is that the additional 1072nm wavelength seems really promising due to its ability to penetrate deeper in the skin and reach different “targets,” but given the limited evidence I would still want the LED device to primarily feature evidence-based wavelengths of 633nm and 830nm.

Not all combination of wavelengths are effective/recommended

Evidence has been also reported indicating the higher efficacy of the combination of different wavelengths in LED therapy than monotherapy (Opel et al., 2015; Jagdeo et al 2018). But Karu and Kolyakov (2005) have pointed out that there are many pairs of wavelengths which actually inhibit cellular activity when used together, yet enhance activity when applied separately. “Light energy represents information for cells, and then they act on that information. Imagine a cell receives receiving conflicting information from two different wavelengths: one tells the cell to “turn right” and the other to “turn left”. At best the cell will be confused and do nothing. At worst, it will shut down partially or completely. Unless there is a specific reason based on photobiological knowledge, one wavelength at a time should be the order of the day in LED phototherapy.” (Calderhead, 2018). At this point, Red + NIR is recommended or Blue (415) + RED or Blue (415) + NIR.

Irradiance (aka Power Density)

LED devices are made up of tiny energy particles called photons. As these photons reach your skin, they deliver their energy to the cells they touch (Calderhead, 2018; Zein et al 2018). The more of these energetic photons hit a patch of skin, the stronger the effect on that area, like giving cells a power boost. This concentration of light hitting the spot is known as the light’s strength, or “power density.” (sometimes called Irradiance). The power density, measured in milliWatts per square centimeter (mW/cm²), is a fancy way of saying how strong or intense the light beam is, based on how packed it is with photons (Calderhead, 2018; Penberthy & Vorwaller, 2021; Zein et al 2018). We know that each wavelength needs sufficient power density to penetrate your skin and do its job, whether that’s healing, reducing wrinkles, or fighting acne.

Photobiomodulation is designed to be a low energy, non-thermal therapy–which is just a fancy way of saying it is not supposed to generate heat (Barolet et al., 2023; Calderhead, 2018).

If the power density is too high (typically above 100 mW/cm2) rather than have the photons be delivered into the skin, they will be converted into heat (which isn’t ideal because then the photons aren’t able to do their job). If anything, you might feel a little warmth to the skin after a treatment (especially if the device has an intensity over 50 mW/cm2), but you don’t want the power to be so high that you quickly feel hot because that also is a sign you aren’t getting the full benefits of the light in your cells. Similar to how you wouldn’t increase your oven temperature from 350 to 600 degrees to cook your cake faster, with LED masks, you want enough power so the cells can absorb the light properly and make a difference, but not so much that the light ends up being counterproductive (Calderhead, 2018; Penberthy & Vorwaller, 2021; Zein et al. 2018).

Irradiance = power (in W or mW, usually mW) ÷ beam area (cm2) at the tissue surface (not the size of the aperture).

“It is the power density of a beam that will determine more than anything else (apart from wavelength) the magnitude of the bioeffect in the target tissue”

Calderhead, 2018

Before investing in a LED device, you want to make sure the mask has sufficient power to help the light reach the cells and you see results.

In general, the power densities for different at-home LED devices are lower than those needed to produce heating of tissue, i.e., less than 100 mW/cm2.

So, with at-home LED devices, you are more likely to come across devices that are underpowered rather than overpowered– which means you’re more likely to run the risk of wasting your time and money using a device that doesn’t deliver on any skin benefits.

So how low is too low? Some researchers theorize that you don’t want to go lower than 5 mW/cm2 because under that point, the light won’t be strong enough to have any beneficial effect.

The lower threshold for clinical (i.e., in-office) irradiance is considered to be 40 mW/cm2 (Calderhead, 2018). Most clinical research studies that focused on skin rejuvenation (including things like improved skin tone, smoothness, appearance of wrinkles, firmness, and elasticity) using around 55 mW/cm².

Based on my review of the results of over a dozen clinical trials that focused on skin rejuvenation, there certainly are studies with positive results and irradiances under 55 mW/cm2. The catch is that studies with irradiances between 8-25 mW/cm2 were a bit hit or miss in terms of finding the skin improvements they were looking for. The studies using irradiances around 35-50 mW/cm2 had the strongest evidence of LED working as intended. So, 5-25 mW/cm2 would be less ideal, and around 35-50 mW/cm2 would be a better goal post.

Higher power densities enable a shorter treatment time (for example, 3 to 10 min instead of 30 min) and less frequent usage (3-4 days a week versus daily), which can be a nice bonus.

Masks with an irradiance less than 50 mW/cm2 are less likely to induce skin hyperthermia (heat) leading to potential unwanted effects (Barolet et al 2016).
- For example, people that are concerned with heat-induced melasma would likely want to stay under 50 mW/cm2 –probably aiming for more like 30-45mW/cm2 because I have used masks with a 50 mW/cm2 and I have noticed that they do generate some heat whereas masks around 30-35mW/cm2 have not.

I think a mask between 30-50mW/cm2 is ideal because those would require shorter treatment times (usually around 10 min ~3x a week) without the potential for heating up the skin or being uncomfortable.

More on the Science Behind Irradiance

The beneficial effects of LLLT are governed by the Arndt–Schultz law, which says that cells will respond differently to varying levels of irradiance (mW/cm2) or radiant exposure (J/cm2).

Light stimulus will be insufficient to trigger a cellular function if it is delivered below the recommended dose and will inhibit activation of these responses if a dose higher than indicated is delivered.

A higher irradiance often means a shorter treatment time. But a higher irradiance isn’t always better. If the irradiance is too high, the photon energy will be transformed to excessive heat in the target tissue; the mask may get hot and can inhibit the treatment or even create undesired outcomes.

It has been shown many times that there is a “dose-rate effect” and if the dose is delivered too quickly the beneficial effects are diminished. (Think of it as cooking at turkey at 800 degrees for 10 min rather than 300 degrees for 6 hours. The internal temperature may be the same, but the skin of the turkey will be charred in the 800 degree oven).
Alternatively, using too low of an irradiance and the photons absorption will be insufficient to achieve the goal. However, the appropriate range of values of irradiance and fluence are not widely agreed upon. One thing to keep in mind is that the irradiance and fluence used in vitro studies are often different from those used in clinical studies. So it is best to draw guidance from clinical studies only (later I provide an overview of some clinical studies focused on skin rejuvenation).
Many LLLT devices have been commercialized without FDA or other medical regulatory approval because the light output is below a nominal hazard level.

Fluence or Energy Density (aka the recommended dose)

FLUENCE = (IRRADIANCE x .001) x TREATMENT TIME IN SECONDS

While power density decides what the LED can do, adding the time you use it allows you to control how much of an effect you get – a lot or a little. In short, both the power density and energy density work together in light therapy. The power density is like picking the right medicine, and the energy density (or dose) is deciding how much of it to use. And keep in mind that if you are using a handheld device or wand, you’ll need to spend enough time on each tiny section of your skin to get the full benefit. That’s why a face mask, which covers your entire face at once, is much more efficient than using a wand, which treats one small area at a time.

Energy density is measured in joules per square centimeter (J/cm2) and is the amount of energy delivered into the tissue.

One reason that knowing the energy density is a useful concept in your LED toolkit, is because it allows you to compare the total energy delivered across masks that use different treatment times and different power densities. If you see two masks with the same treatment time, you can easily assess which one has a stronger intensity. But what happens when one mask is only 3 minutes and one mask is 10 minutes? Or what if you want to use your mask for twice as long? What kind of LED dose will you be giving your skin? Using the strength of the light and how long you use it, you can figure out the total energy delivered. This is especially handy when you want to compare two masks that have different treatment times and intensities to see how they stack up in terms of total energy delivered.

There is no fixed value of fluence that always produces a positive LLLT effect. Even within different studies on the same animal models, there can be contradictory findings. In a meta-analysis of LLLT in wound repair, energy densities from 19 to 24 J/cm2 were found to be more effective than energy densities at or below 8.25 J/cm2 (Woodruff et al., 2004).

Among clinical studies focused on skin rejuvenation, fluence values ranges from 1.2 J/cm2 to 126 J/cm2, with the median being 66 J/cm2.

However, the energy density is not the key determinant of the device’s efficacy. That is the role of irradiance (Barolet et al., 2016). That is because the same dose (fluence) can be associated with different results based on the irradiance and treatment time (Almeida-Lopes et a., 2001; Barolet et al., 2016). But it is helpful to know what it is to either calculate the power density or to identify the ideal treatment time.

It has been reported for a continuous wave system that shorter irradiation times with a higher intensity (irradiance) got significantly better results in first passage human gingival fibroblast proliferation in vitro compared with longer irradiation times at a lower intensity, even though the dose (in J/cm2) was the same (Almeida-Lopes et a., 2001).
Note: You don’t want to know the joule (J), you want to know the J/cm2.

Tips When Buying an LED Mask

Questions to ask a Company: Wavelengths

Does the mask manufacturer provide the specific wavelengths (i.e., doesn’t just say the color of the wavelengths)?
- If no, I would pass. This should be the bare minimum requirement.
- I would ask a company like this: “What are the specific wavelengths used (in nm)? And what is the deviation on either side (i.e., how precise is the wavelength)?“
Does the device use precise wavelengths (e.g., 633nm) versus wide ranges of wavelengths (e.g., 620-750nm)? Ask what the nominal wavelength of the system is, and what is the deviation either side.
- If the device has an imprecise wavelength, then that means you aren’t getting as pure or high quality a light.
- The higher the grade of the LED, the narrower the bandwidth of the emitted photons, allowing LEDs to emit the rated wavelength plus or minus a very few nanometers.” (Calderhead & Vasily, 2016). For example, the FaceLITE LED mask has LED arrays with a wavelength of 633nm within the range of +- 10. That means that 90% of the photons are at the rated wavelength and will therefore optimally target wavelength-specific chromophores at that wavelength.
- A difference of even 5nm from the peak can in some cases dramatically lower the “action potential” (Calderhead, 2018)
Does the mask use wavelengths with published scientific evidence showing it’s effectiveness?

- Some companies like to highlight the number of wavelengths used, but often those additional wavelengths have very little or no published work to back up the claims of the manufacturer (and they seem more like a marketing gimmick than anything), and a careful consideration of the wavelength/penetration ratio will rule out many of the shorter visible light wavelengths (Calderhead, 2018).
- If the goal is overall skin rejuvenation (including reducing inflammation and speeding up healing), choose a mask with NIR (ideally 830) as the literature has consistently found that this wavelength targets a larger number of the necessary cell types and has a better effect on the overall skin rejuvenation process than other wavelengths (Kim & Calderhead, 2011).
- Keep to well-proven wavelengths, applied singly unless they are the well-tested combinations. Karu and Kolyakov (2005) have pointed out that there are many pairs of wavelengths which actually inhibit cellular activity when used together, yet enhance activity when applied separately. So unless it is Red and NIR, Red and Blue, or NIR and Blue, you may want to just use different colors separately.
- If it uses Blue light, the wavelength with the most evidence behind it is 415nm. And 415nm appears to be best and many recommend using it in combination with red or NIR (but blue +red has more evidence).

Questions to Ask a Company: Irradiance

Does the company report the irradiance (or will they tell you if asked)?
- Devices with extremely low irradiance probably won’t have any determinantal effects, but they can be a waste of money and time.
- You can email companies and ask them to tell you the irradiance (or power density) reported in mW/cm2. If they only report the J/cm2 you can calculate the mW/cm2 using the recommended treatment time (in seconds).
- Here’s what I would ask: “Could you tell me the irradiance (i.e., power density) of the mask (reported in mW/cm2 or W/cm2)?”
  - If you ask for the power density and the company tells you the energy density (i.e., a number followed by J/cm2) instead, you can calculate the power density by using the suggested treatment time (and converting it so seconds).
    For example, Light Salon recommends 10 min sessions. Their fluence is 18 J/cm2. They report their power density, but if they didn’t we could find it by first converting the treatment time to seconds (10*60=600). Then taking 18/600 = 0.03 W/cm2 and multiply that times 1,000 to get 30 mW/cm2.
- Any manufacturer of an LED device should understand how power density (irradiance) is important when making and use LED devices. Therefore, if they don’t share the data it would make me suspicious as to whether they know the irradiance or if there is some reason they don’t want to share it. It is not that the device won’t be effective, it is just that you really won’t be able to gauge whether it is comparable to masks that have been found to be effective. Also, you won’t know what you are working with and you may be wasting your time and money using the device.

When picked out an LED mask, the goal is to avoid a mask that fails to deliver the power, penetration, and clinical benefits claimed by the manufacturers.

How can you avoid wasting your money? Aim to purchase products that use evidence-based wavelengths and that report all key parameters.

Also, this isn’t mentioned below but take into consideration convenience. Because these products only work if you use them.

Marketing Myths to Watch Out For

Does the number of lights matter?

Not as much as the wavelength and irradiance.
More bulbs doesn’t mean a more powerful mask because the irradiance (mW/cm2) refers to the entire array and not the individual LED.

Is it better to have a mask with more colors?

Many companies want you to think this. But a mask with more colors is not necessarily better than one with two evidence-based wavelengths.
If you choose wavelengths that are not optimal (i.e., poor absorption), the energy will be mostly wasted.
The three wavelengths of light that have demonstrated several therapeutic applications are blue (e.g., 415nm), red (e.g., 633nm), and near-infrared (e.g., 830nm) (Ablon, 2018; Gavish & Houreld, 2019; Kim & Calderhead, 2011; Jagdeo et al., 2018; Sawhney & Hamblin, 2016; Woodruff et al., 2004; Zheng et al., 2020). Prioritize those and consider the addition of yellow or higher NIR (1072) a bonus.

If you come across a mask that you are curious about, I recommend identifying the wavelengths used, the irradiance and the treatment time. Then you can compare those specs with this list to see how it stacks up.

Features of the Ideal Mask (in my opinion) and My Top Picks

It contains the two most evidence-based wavelengths (red at about 633nm; NIR at about 830nm) with precise values (instead of wide ranges). This includes NOT having unnecessary or potentially detrimental wavelengths.
Transparency from the company as to what the irradiance is and having an irradiance around 30-50 mW/cm2. This ensures it has a high enough irradiance so that the recommended usage isn’t 7 days a week and more than 10 minutes at a time.
- - I have tried a couple masks with an irradiance of 50 mW/cm2 or higher, I can say that I would prefer to stay around 30-40 mW/cm2 because I don’t enjoy my face feeling warm and it makes my skin flush really red. However, not everyone may care about feeling a bit warm. For example, my brother is loving the TheraFace LED mask even though he says it gets quite warm by the end of 6-9 min. But for me, it was too warm and left my face red for awhile.
2 year warranty (and you don’t have to jump through hoops to have the company honor it). A couple lights went out on my Light Salon LED mask right after the 1 year mark and that is totally covered by the warranty. Similarly, my Omnilux mask had to be replaced at the 1 year mark. LED is fragile technology so having that warranty can protect your investment. In my mind, the warranty helps to justify some of the price because some masks may be cheaper but they may stop working after a year and you would have to repurchase! Omnilux has really great customer service and a very easy return policy followed closely by Light Salon. For example, to get your mask replaced if something goes wrong you don’t need to jump through any hoops. You just send a photo or video and they will send you a new mask. (However, I would ONLY buy Omnilux through their website and not through a wholesaler or MedSpa/esthetician to have that seamless and easy experience) I love knowing that they have really incredible customer service!
Factors that will make me more likely to use it consistently. This will vary for everyone. But things that I find increase the likelihood of me using a mask include:
- Doesn’t require being plugged in (because let’s be honest, if it isn’t comfortable and convenient you won’t use it as often!)
- Flexible/flat design (this is totally personal preference, but I like flexible masks because you can lay on other parts of your body (neck, hands, hairline). I even lay mine on my abdomen to help fade an appendectomy scar. I also love how silicone masks lay flat are easier to store (and take up less space). Plus it’s easier to take it with you when you travel.
- Treatment duration and frequency of use (tie because all of the masks have the same recommended frequency [3-5 days a week] and duration [10 min])
- Having a comfortable fit with good coverage.
- Extra considerations:
  - I find that Omnilux has a slightly better fit on my face than Current Body, Light Salon, and Priori. After using Light Salon for a year and then trying the Priori and Current Body that have almost identical designs except for one extra strap, I am happy I got to try the Omnilux mask because it enabled me to see how the slightly different shape impacts fit. The Omnilux shape is designed to be a better fit for healing post cosmetic procedures but there isn’t a huge difference in coverage (just a couple centimeters — I took some photos that I included below). I like how this one gets a little closer to the jaw line because of the strap arrangement, but it is super minor difference. Omnilux and FaceLite are almost identical except they differ in terms of the straps used. I like that Omnilux has 2 separate straps to adjust the fit differently on the top & bottom because I think it lends itself to greater fit customization.
  - Omnilux has been a leader in LED research and has conducted the most clinical trials out of all of the companies (granted, they weren’t using this specific mask, but I appreciate that they conduct those trials) and they publish research that has to go through the peer-review process (in other words, it is more rigorous and it has been vetted).
  - Omnilux Men’s Mask has a handful of the 1072nm LEDs to target the forehead, the crow’s feet, and along the laugh lines and that sets it apart for me.

So my top pick is the Omnilux Men’s Mask (see below for more info)

After the Omnilux Men’s mask, I would pick Contour, then tie between Light Salon/Current Body/Priori, then Dr. Naomi, and then Higher Dose Red Light Face Mask. If you are ok with a hard shell, I think the TheraFace mask is a great pick.

LED Mask Comparison

Note: some of the links below are affiliate links where I will earn a commission from your purchase. This does not impact your cost. Posts like this take me a ton of time (for example, I took PTO from my full time job to work on this), so I appreciate your support if you do choose to shop through my links.

Here is a condensed list of updated deals on my favorite LED devices

Click Here

Looking at the specs for various LED devices

The masks in my comparison represent only a small selection of the LED masks available. I tried to include the most popular masks and any masks that I could find information on in the FDA 510(k) database. I also only focused on face masks, versus hand held devices or panels because I had to narrow it down somehow and since I enjoy using the mask bc of its convenience that is what I focused on.

But the same research that applies to face masks applies to handheld devices, so you are able to assess their potential efficacy using the parameters above. The one difference with panels is that you also need to consider how far away you will be from the panel.

My goal with this post was never to tell you what MY favorite mask was. It was to arm you with information to decide which is best for you.

Note that if any new mask comes out that happens to look like these, you can’t judge equivalence just by how it looks! The key parameters are what matter most. Ignore the number of lights, and look for the wavelengths, total power delivered (irradiance), and total energy delivered (fluence) and you should have all the info you need.

TIP: when it comes to skincare devices I highly recommend the following google search “accessdata.fda.gov [name of device]” – if you are lucky you will be able to find the 510(k) document that often contains specs that the company doesn’t always openly reveal. For masks sold in the United States, very few manufacturers have received FDA approval and have gone through this process (I have linked the ones that I found below).

"Some less than truthful manufacturers will claim FDA approval, when in fact all they hold is a letter from FDA recognizing that their LED system is a nonsignificant risk device, or NSRD. This is NOT the same as a system's having gone through the due regulatory process to obtain what is known as a 510(k) approval showing significant equivalence to another system with prior approval based on which, and only on which, can that device be legally sold in the USA for clinical use" (p.326).

Calderhead, 2018

On that note, “I-smart marketing LTD” submitted a 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the FaceLITE device using “Shape B” (the same shape that Light Salon and CurrentBody use) and received approval. That approval was then applied to the 6 other masks all made by the same manufacturer.* Here is where you can see all of the devices approved under that 510(k) approval and made by the same manufacturer: link
* Note: In the past year, CB switched manufacturers–previously they used the same manufacturer as Light Salon, Priori, and Omnilux.

Flexible LED Masks

$395

$ 355

Wavelengths: 633nm; 830nm; 1072 nm
Irradiance: 35 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min
Fluence: 21 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (27 cm x 19 cm)
Warranty: 2 years

Top Pick

I Started using this in Nov. 2022 and as of Jan 2024 this is what I continue to use.
In addition to having the same red (633nm) and NIR (830nm) wavelengths, this also includes a a handful of strategically placed diodes with NIR 1072nm to penetrate even deeper into the skin. So the vast majority of the LEDs are still the 633nm and 830nm wavelengths — but then they added a handful of the 1072nm LEDs to target the forehead, the crow’s feet, and along the laugh lines.
I talk more about the new research behind 1072 wavelength in my other blog post, but the reason Omnilux is calling this the Omnilux Men’s mask is because “Men generally have ~25% thicker facial skin than women due to men having a higher percentage of the hormone testosterone. Since the 1072nm penetrates deeper than 633nm and 830nm it is able to target the deepest cells.” As a note, I couldn’t find a citation (that doesn’t mean one isn’t out there) for the 25% thicker estimate, but I did find a high quality study that reported that males had 10-20% thicker skin than females (Bailey et al., 2011).
- Note that women can use the mask. Whether you experience better results or the same results is unclear. But there is no reason to expect any unwanted adverse results.
This mask has slightly longer straps than the Clear and Contour but otherwise it is the same size.
If you haven’t bought an LED mask yet and you were considering the Omnilux Contour, I would personally go with the new mask.
For a longer blog post on this mask click here
Note: I would ONLY buy Omnilux through their website and not through a wholesaler or MedSpa/esthetician if you want to ensure that your warranty process (should you need to use it) is seamless and easy.

$395

$ 355

Wavelengths: 633nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 35 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min
Fluence: 21 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (27 cm x 19 cm)
Warranty: 2 years

Top Pick

- 2 year warranty (I have heard really great feedback from some people that needed to use the warranty. You don’t need to jump through any hoops. Just send a photo or video and they will send you a new mask. I love knowing that they have really incredible customer service!)
- Note: I would ONLY buy Omnilux through their website and not through a wholesaler or MedSpa/esthetician if you want to ensure that your warranty process (should you need to use it) is seamless and easy.

- Since I talked about this at length above, I won’t say much more. But one thing I didn’t note was that I get 15, 10 minute sessions before having to charge it again.
- The company is leaders in LED research (and for what it’s worth they are nice and always helpful).

- Available at omnilux.com and the code GOALS10 saves 10% making it $355 (free shipping). This code works on ALL Omnilux products (including the glove, the Neck & Dec, and their hydrogel masks). It is not a commissionable code, so if you find this post helpful and plan to use the discount code, I would appreciate if you shopped through my link (which I do make a commission off of)!
- I started using this mask in Jan of 2021 and I also have been using their LED glove on just my right hand. I am very excited about the glove because now I can just use that on one hand and see if there is an improvement from the left hand. Finally a clean comparison! ***a 4 month update can be found in my Omnilux Story highlights!***

$380

$ 323

Wavelengths: 633nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 30 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min
Fluence: 18 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (27 cm x 19 cm)
Warranty: 2 years

This is identical (not just in looks, in wavelength, irradiance) to Light Salon. The only difference is it is missing the strap for the top of the head and it is cheaper than Light Salon.
Since you can easily buy an extra strap for $7 to greatly improve fit (Here is the one that a follower recommended), I have a hard time justifying getting Light Salon over this one given the price difference.
Available at CurrentBody.com.
GOALSLED takes 15% off the LED mask for those in the US as well as regions outside the US.
GOALSLED gives 15% off the “neck and dec” (making the Neck and Dec $264). (Should be the same code for US and non-US regions)
GOALSHAND brings the LED Hand to $240.(Should be the same code for US and non-US regions)
GOALSCOMBO makes the Face and Neck mask combo $513. (Should be the same code for US and non-US regions)
GOALSLIP gives 15% off the LED Lip mask.

$495

$ 371

Wavelengths: 633nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 30 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min
Fluence: 18 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (27 cm x 19 cm)
Warranty: 2 years

This is the mask that I used from Nov. 2019-Dec. 2020. I was sent the mask by the brand to try (with no string attached) and I loved it. One key thing I found was that the strap on top really helps improve the fit, so I like that they include it. However, if you live in the US, because of the exchange rate (they are based in the UK), this one may end up being pricier than some of the other ones that are identical to it (i.e., CurrentBody, PRIORI).
Available at thelight-salon.com where I have a 25% off affiliate coupon code (GOALSTOGETGLOWING25) that brings the cost down to $371. This code works on all Light Salon products.
ALSO! Light Salon doesn’t charge tax (whereas Current Body does).

$442

$ 354

Wavelengths: 633nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 30 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min
Fluence: 18 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (27 cm x 19 cm)
Warranty: 2 years

This is identical to Light Salon and Current Body and compared to the Light Salon this also doesn’t have the strap on top, so you may want to buy that to improve fit.
On Priori’s website I have a 20% off code (VANESSA20).

$ 419

Wavelengths: 633nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 40 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min (3-5x/week)
Fluence: 24 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (dimensions unknown)
Warranty: 1 year

New addition as of 5/10/22
I found out about this one from @ms_hannah_e on IG and it has great specs! It uses evidence based wavelengths for red and NIR and has a great irradiance. This only has one strap across the back, so this might be one where you might want to buy an extra velcro strap to help you better customize your fit.
One downside is that they only have a 1 year warranty.

$349

$ 297

Wavelengths: 630nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 50 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min (3-5x/week)
Fluence: 30 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (29.5 cm x 21.6 cm)
Warranty: 1 year limited

*New Edition 11/29/22!**
The company sent me this mask to try. When I got the mask and read the booklet it said that the irradiance was 30 mW/cm2 and NOT 50 mW/cm2 (which is what the company told me over email correspondence). So then I contacted the company again and they said that originally they were working with a different manufacturer which had the 30 mW/cm2, but then they went with a different manufacturer but they didn’t update the manual…
They sent me the updated “digital” manual and it says that 630nm has an irradiance of 26 mW/cm2 and the 830nm has an irradiance of 24 mW/2cm, for a combined irradiance of 50mW/cm2. I find it odd that they didn’t make sure the manual had the current info initially. But I will take their word for it and assume it is the irradiance they say it is.
I will say that the mask gets warm and subsequently makes my face flush (which doesn’t happen with Omnilux, Current Body, Light Salon). I think if I had melasma that was heat induced, I might pass on this one because the higher irradiance seems to have a bit extra warmth and flushing for me. Also, this blog post by Andrew of Gembared highlights why a LED device that generates heat can reduce absorption.
Having only a 1 year warranty is a big downside. My Omnilux had issues at 1.5 years and was immediately replaced and my Light Salon mask had a few lights go out right after 1 year and was also still under warranty. So a 1 year warranty means you run the risk of having to buy an all new mask if something goes wrong as a year (LED is a very fragile technology so the warranties are very important IMHO) . So I personally think 2 year warranties are the way to go with LED masks.
Two other things to note. (1) They do include eye shields but they aren’t the kind that fit in the eye socket of the mask and you can see out still, they are just like the tanning goggles (and they aren’t very comfortable but if the light is bright for you, then you may want to use them). (2) I don’t love the velcro system because I feel like you are quite limited in adjusting it and people with a smaller face may not be able to get a good fit. I have a large face and I was at the tightest for all straps.

$ 399

Wavelengths: 415nm; 630nm; 830 nm
Irradiance: Blue = 44 mW/cm2; Red/NIR = 30 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min (3-5x/week)
Fluence: blue = 26 J/cm2; Red/NIR = 18 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (unclear on dimensions)
Warranty: 1 year

1/16/24 Update
- Looks like the Mask & Glo LED mask has been updated to this Glotech mask.
I like that this mask uses the evidence-based wavelengths and has good irradiance.
It has a blue + red setting as well as a red + NIR setting (which is great) that they have both so that you can primarily use the red + NIR.
It comes with eye shields (as it should since it has blue light, so be sure to use those during the blue + red session).
The biggest downside of this mask is that it only has a 1 year warranty and I don’t have any intel on how easy their warranty process is or how their customer service is.

$395

$ 355

Wavelengths: 415nm; 633nm
Irradiance: ~45 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min
Fluence: 27 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (27 cm x 19 cm)
Warranty: 2 years

This mask is not intended to prevent acne. It is just for the short term treatment of acne. For example, just for the Clear mask Omnilux recommends 4, 10-minute treatments per week for 6 weeks and once the 6 weeks are up you are supposed to stop using it. (In the peer reviewed literature most studies just did 2 treatments a week for 4 weeks max).
It has blue (415nm) and red (633nm) and that combo is the evidence-based combination for acne, so that is great (sometimes companies include blue light but not at the correct or effective wavelength).
It also has built in eye-guards (which is very important for any mask with Blue wavelengths)
The benefit of the 415nm wavelength is that it does not penetrate very deeply so it targets a very specific bacteria in your skin. Red light also targets a different bacteria that is deeper in your skin AND it can help reduce inflammation. The Contour mask can also help with acne (I have found it very beneficial for hormonal acne as it can reduce inflammation and the red light still targets the one form of bacteria deeper in the skin) and red and NIR don’t have any potential drawbacks like blue light does (like the potential for unwanted pigmentation). So unless you want a second mask for a short term treatment of moderate acne that is all over your face (and it would be too time intensive to spot treat each pimple with a LED stick), I would personally stick with the Contour mask rather than the Clear.
Also, as an FYI, neither red + blue nor red + NIR work great for whiteheads or blackheads.

$ 425

Wavelengths: 633nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 30 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min
Fluence: 18 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (27 cm x 19 cm)
Warranty: 2 years

You can find this in two shapes. The one sold in the US (which I have linked) looks like Omnilux and the UK one looks like Light Salon/Current Body
This is a good mask, but keep in mind that you have to register your device at this website to have your warranty be valid: https://faceliteusa.com/register
FDA 510(k) approval document

$ 386

Wavelengths: 633nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 30 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min
Fluence: 18 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (27 cm x 19 cm)
Warranty: Unclear

This is the same as Omnilux Contour except it comes with optional eye shields, but it is more expensive
I couldn’t confirm the warranty info. So I would pass on this.

£ 150

Wavelengths: 630nm; 850nm
Irradiance: 35 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min
Fluence: 21 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (29 cm x 20 cm)
Warranty: ???

This is not available for those in the states.
I was happy to see this had a good irradiance and used Red in the right wavelength and NIR was close to ideal (I don’t know of any peer-reviewed published literature clearly stating that 850nm should be considered the optimum wavelength. Instead, many researchers agree that 810-840 is ideal with 830nm being the gold standard).
But if you have access to it, this could be a great, more affordable option. I don’t have any info as to whether this has undergone any clearance processes or safety testing.
This is unconfirmed, but someone said it had a 2 year warranty

$ 950

Wavelengths: 415nm; 633nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 30 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min (3-5x/week)
Fluence: 18 J/cm2
Style: Molded (unclear on dimensions)
Warranty: 2 years (but you have to register it)

There are 2 treatment modes: Anti-aging (Red 633nm with NIR 830nm) and Acne mode (red plus blue 415nm).
A follower purchased this and chatted with me about their thoughts. They like that on the charger it counted down the minutes that remain. It is quasi flexible, but it it won’t lay flat on its own. But you could lay it on your chest, for example, and press and hold it down. The big downside is that when you use the Red/NIR setting, there are no light coverage on the chin at all (there is only light coverage on the chin with the blue + red setting).
This has good wavelengths and irradiance, but it is super expensive. If you are excited about the blue light for infrequent breakouts you may want to consider getting a $50 LED stick by Dr. Dennis Gross. It has 415nm and 633nm and high irradiance so it is a 3 min session. That way you can use that on any spots that pop up. But if you do want to treat acne all over your face, then you may like the option of the MZ mask because you could use the blue setting. I would rely on the Red + NIR setting for day to day use though because consistent use of Blue light isn’t great for your skin. It can be wonderful in the short term (like less than a couple times a week for 4 weeks) for moderate to severe acne, but it isn’t something I would use to prevent acne or to use on a consistent basis.

$ 319

Wavelengths: 400-420nm; 465-470nm;500-520nm; 515-525 nm; 565-590nm; 600-612nm; 620-630nm; 830-870nm
Irradiance: 18 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 20 min (7x/week)
Fluence: 21.6 mW/cm2
Style: Flexible (29 cm x 20 cm)
Warranty: 2 year

There are a number of red flags for me about this one.
- This definitely a mask that is hoping that you think more wavelengths immediately means it is better–which just isn’t the case.
- While it does have Red and NIR wavelengths (620-630; 830-870), they aren’t precise (i.e., they are a range rather than one precise point). And I am not sure whether you could JUST use the red and NIR in any one setting.
- Second, it contains a number of wavelengths that don’t have evidence to back them up (and some like 465-470nm are ones I would actually avoid) AND I am really turned off by the unfounded claims that this company makes about the various colors it includes (it has a lot of wavelengths that have no evidence to back up their claims).
- The lower irradiance means you would need to wear this longer (20 min) and more days a week to see results.

$ 495

Wavelengths: 465nm; 630nm
Irradiance: 30 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min (5x/week)
Fluence: 18 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (dimensions unknown)
Warranty: None found

New addition as of 5/10/22
This is the most gimmicky LED mask…apparently this one also has rose quartz crystals.
Major downside right off the bat is that it uses a blue wavelength that is NOT the one that has been found to help with acne (415nm) but has been found to induce hyperpigmentation.
But since it does include blue wavelengths I was happy to see that it comes with protective goggles (blue wavelengths require eye protection whereas red does not).
Another major downside is that it doesn’t include NIR.
One plus is that it has a good wavelength for red and it seems like you are able to choose either the blue or the red setting. I would personally skip the blue setting entirely and just use the red setting. But at this price, I would buy a mask that has both Red and NIR because let’s be honest, the addition of rose quartz crystals is not going to do anything for your skin.

$ 484

Wavelengths: 415nm; 633nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 50 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min (3-4x/week)
Fluence: 30 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (unclear on dimensions)
Warranty: 1 year

Added 1/4/2024
I like that this mask uses the evidence-based wavelengths.
This looks like a nice option except for the fact that it only has a 1 year warranty (which as I have mentioned over and over is a big downside because you will often use your warranty with LED masks).
The irradiance is high at 50mW/cm2 so this mask may be like the Higher Dose mask which has the same irradiance and gets quiet warm. (Also, it is odd that they don’t list a separate irradiance for the blue + red setting versus the red + NIR because blue + red irradiance is almost always different/higher).
Note that with this mask, for the best results in acne reduction, you would need to do the blue setting (which is blue alone) followed by the red + NIR (ideally it would have had a blue + red setting to save you some time, but instead you should plan on a 20 min treatment).
I do like that it includes eye shields since there is a blue light setting and I like that on the website they add this (correct) disclaimer: “We recommend that you avoid using the blue light as blue light can exacerbate melasma and pigmentation”

$ 399

Wavelengths: 460nm, 605nm, 630nm, 660nm, 850nm
Irradiance: High: 55 mW/cm², Mid: 40 mW/cm², Low: 30 mW/cm²
Treatment time: 10min (3-5x/week)
Fluence: 18-33 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (dimensions unknown)
Warranty: 1 year

Added 1/4/24
While it includes red and NIR, which I like, the blue light at 460nm is a concern for me. I worry it might cause hyperpigmentation and it’s not the ideal wavelength for targeting acne-causing bacteria. The one good thing is that you can just totally skip that wavelength and only use the one that uses red/amber/NIR setting.
However, I would give this mask the same criticism that I gave to the DDG mask that uses those wavelengths.
A unique feature of this mask is its adjustable irradiance levels (High: 55 mW/cm², Mid: 40 mW/cm², Low: 30 mW/cm²).
Another downside is that the mask only comes with only a 1-year warranty.

$ 256

Wavelengths: 460nm; 590nm; 633nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 40 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min (3-4x/week)
Fluence: 20 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (dimensions unknown)
Warranty: 1 year

Added 1/5/24
One thing that I appreciate about this mask is that you can either use the blue, yellow or red wavelength individually, or you can add NIR to any of those 3 (My go-to would definitely be the combination of 633nm and 830nm). If I were to want to use the yellow, I like that it could be combined with NIR.
However, I have reservations about the 460nm blue light, as it could potentially cause hyperpigmentation and hasn’t been found to be effective for acne treatment. I really don’t know why would have chosen 460nm instead of 415nm–such a missed opportunity.
The website/company loses some credibility when they claim that yellow light “promotes lymphatic drainage, improves cell metabolism, and enhances skin detoxification, while reducing redness and irritation”. Like many companies, they are stating something as fact when it is not at all backed by strong evidence, which raise doubts about the company’s understanding of light therapy.
The irradiance level is 40 mW/cm², which is within a good range for effectiveness without being too intense.
In terms of design features, the company seems to think not having a dangling cord will be a huge selling point because they emphasize that the new mask (which you can preorder now) has a head strap housing a rechargeable controller. I am curious how comfortable that would be and I also wonder how many uses you would get before having to charge it (the smaller the controller, the shorter the battery life)
The inclusion of removable eye shields is a thoughtful addition, especially considering the mask uses blue light, which can be harmful to the eyes over time.
A major downside is only having a 1 year of warranty.
Overall, the price isn’t bad so if you really want a mask with yellow 590nm as an add-on to the 633nm and 830nm, then this might be a good option for you.

$ 164

Wavelengths: 605nm. 630nm; 650nm; 850nm
Irradiance: 15-25 mW/cm2 (see note)
Treatment time: 10 min (3-4x/week)
Fluence: 9-15 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (dimensions unknown)
Warranty: 3 months

Added 2/13/24
This has evidence based wavelengths and good irradiance. The biggest downside is the 3 mth warranty. But the low price may offset that for some folks.
The brand didn’t disclose the irradiance, but since it used good wavelengths I bought the mask and sent it to @GembaRed to have them test the irradiance with their meter. This has 3 levels of intensity. According to their test, the lowest setting had an irradiance of 15mW/cm2 and the highest had an irradiance of 25 mW/cm2 (I would use it at the highest setting to get a dose of 15 J/cm2).

$ 425

Wavelengths: 415nm; 630nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 30 mW/cm²
Treatment time: 10 min (3-4x/week)
Fluence: 18 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (dimensions unknown)
Warranty: 1 year

Added 1/5/24
TL;DR: This mask seems nice.
I like that it uses evidence-based wavelengths combined with a good irradiance level (however, it is odd that they don’t list a separate irradiance for the blue + red setting versus the red + NIR because blue + red irradiance is almost always different/higher).
There are 3 programs you can use: red + NIR (this is what I would predominantly use), just blue, or blue + red (research shows that blue + red has better results than blue alone, so I would use the blue + red if you were to use that setting to treat an active breakout.)
I really like the unique design of this mask where you have a chin strap that you can either not connect (and have it shine on the neck) or you can wrap it under your chin.
It includes removable eye protection, which I would be sure to use when you use a setting with blue light.
The main downside is the 1-year warranty, which could be a concern if the mask encounters issues after the warranty period. Also, I don’t have any intel on their customer service or the ease of their warranty process.

$ 395

Wavelengths: 460nm; 630nm; 850nm
Irradiance: 30 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min (3-5x/week)
Fluence: 18 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (dimensions unknown)
Warranty: 1 year

Added 1/5/24; Updated 2/12/24

RED FLAG: The company says that their mask offers a “Purple Light” setting, a combination of red and blue light, which is scientifically inaccurate. Wavelengths of light cannot be combined to create new colors in the context of LED therapy. This misunderstanding casts doubt on the company’s credibility and understanding of light therapy principles.
The claim that the 460nm blue light can control breakouts, including inflammatory acne, blackheads, and whiteheads, is misleading. Research has shown that blue light in the 410-420nm range is effective against inflammatory acne, but there’s limited evidence for its effectiveness against blackheads and whiteheads, and even less so for 460nm.
HSA/FSA eligible which is nice.
Only has a 1-year Warranty

$ 395

Wavelengths: 415nm; 590nm; 633nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 22.8-34.1 mW/cm² (see note!)
Treatment time: 10 min (3-4x/week)
Fluence: 13.7-20.5 J/cm2 (depending on mode)
Style: Flexible (dimensions unknown)
Warranty: 1 year

Added 1/31/24 – Updated 2/26/24 after someone sent me updated information from the company.
I like that you can use any light combined with NIR (or just by itself). So I would recommend using the red and NIR predominantly.
A blog follower reached out to the company about the irradiance for each setting and was given the following information:
- Red (633nm) + NIR (830nm) – 34.1 mw/cm2
- Yellow (590nm) + NIR (830nm) – 29.1 mw/cm2
- Blue (415nm) + NIR (830nm) – 22.8 mw/cm2
Apparently it has 3 levels of intensity and the reported level is the max irradiance.
It includes removable eye protection, which I would be sure to use when you use a setting with blue light.
The main downside is the 1-year warranty, which could be a concern if the mask encounters issues after the warranty period. Also, I don’t have any intel on their customer service or the ease of their warranty process.

$ 550

Wavelengths: 525nm; 590nm; 633nm; 660nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 28-50 mW/cm2 (depending on setting)
Treatment time: 10 min (3-4x/week)
Fluence: 17-30 J/cm2
Style: Flexible (27 cm x 19 cm)
Warranty: 2 year

Added 1/5/24
ok… so I am going to be frank with you all. I was disappointed when Current Body came out with this mask because I like their original mask and I felt like they valued making a mask with evidence-based wavelengths. But this mask goes against that principle and seems gimmicky.
Wavelengths: The inclusion of 525nm is the biggest reason I think this is a cash grab because there is no empirical evidence (meaning, not just manufacturer claims) to suggest green light has any skin benefits.
- Re: the green wavelength….They list the green wavelength as both 525nm and 532nm in different parts of their website. So I am not really sure which one they are using.
The 590nm wavelength might be fine for those willing to experiment, but its benefits are not well-established either.
The mask has 4 treatments.
- Treatment 1: This is the one that they are pretty jazzed about – it has facial mapping with Red (633 + 660nm) are on the forehead (note that NIR is notably absent). Then green around the eyes and yellow on nose and chin.
- Treatment 2: NIR (830nm), red (633nm), deep red (660nm). This is the one I would focus on if I had the mask.
- Treatment 3: NIR (830nm) + green (532nm). I would personally skip due to my doubts about the benefits of green light and I don’t like to waste my time.
- Treatment 4: NIR (830nm) + yellow (590nm). This one might be worth trying, albeit with the understanding that the evidence for yellow light’s benefits is not strongly established.
Another mark against their credibility is some of the bold marketing claims. On their website they say “109% more powerful than other multi-treatment LED masks, this flexible mask uses 5 precise wavelengths within 4 targeted treatment modes, to address 18 different skin concerns with ease. Proven through independent testing.”
In terms of the claim that it is “proven” to address “18 different skin concerns” we later find out that the independent testing consisted of a self-report survey that 94 customers filled out.
I’m being especially tough on Current Body here because I held them to a higher standard than this. Perhaps their intent was just to give people what they want (and a lot of companies promote BS claims about what green and yellow wavelengths can do) but I wish they would have even just skipped the green altogether.
Bottom line, if you want to only use the treatment setting with evidence-based wavelengths (the red + NIR) but you want a mask that has yellow wavelengths (on the off chance it is beneficial) and you are willing to pay $227 more just for the small chance the yellow wavelength will be useful, then perhaps you will like this mask.

$ 199

Wavelengths: 430-450nm; 620-730nm; "NIR"
Irradiance: Not disclosed
Treatment time: 10 min (5 x a week)
Fluence: Not disclosed
Style: Flexible (dimensions unknown)
Warranty: Unclear

Added 2/13/24
TL; DR: Hard Pass for me
I was excited to see an LED mask offered at Costco, but this device is really poor key parameters (which means I’m not going to hold my breath to get any of the LED benefits)
here are my issues with this mask:
- (1) The red wavelength spans from 620-730 telling me this is a very imprecise wavelength and low quality. Usually you would want a range no more than +/- 10 (so like 633nm with +/- 10 range on either side). Also, the wavelengths in the 700-730 range are recommended by researchers to be avoided because of poor penetration, so that makes the wide range of wavelengths even less ideal.
- (2) BLUE LIGHT (430-450 nm Wavelength) – this range also isn’t ideal, but at least the blue light has a narrower band than the red. But what you would really want to see would be a narrow band around 415nm. Also, it is worthwhile mentioning again that Studies have observed unintended hyperpigmentation with wavelengths between 420-443nm.
- (3) Major red flag is that they don’t specify what the NIR wavelength is.
- (4) They don’t tell us what the power/irradiance is… so there is no way to know if it is underpowered and won’t be effective or overpowered and might produce heat (which is counterproductive to light absorption and may be especially bad for people with heat induced melasma).

Hard Shell Face Masks

$ 599

Wavelengths: 415nm; 633nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 55-73 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 3 min (5x/week)
Fluence: 10-13 J/cm2
Style: Hard (31cm x 23cm)
Warranty: 1 year

Click here to read a full blog post on this mask, but overall, It is a good mask with some unique features.
This mask has some pros and cons. Positives include a quick 3-minute Red + NIR treatment, relaxing vibration for the face and scalp, it includes a blue light option at 415nm, a larger size than other hard shell LED masks fitting various face shapes and comes with the most comfortable eye shields, which are particularly beneficial for those sensitive to red light or when using the blue light. On the downside, the mask can become warm during use, particularly if you opt for more than one 3-minute session, has only a 1-year warranty, and its bulky design makes storage challenging and restricts use to the face.

$ 455

Wavelengths: 415nm; 605nm; 630nm; 660nm; 880nm
Irradiance: 50-61 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 3 min
Fluence: 9-11 J/cm2
Style: Hard (22 cm x 20 cm)
Warranty: 2 years

The output for the red setting is 61 mW/cm2 and the acne treatment is 50 mW/cm2.
This has a 2 year warranty BUT you have to be sure to register your device within ONE MONTH of buying it or the warranty is void. This is a major downside in my opinion and sadly a follower had the experience of the mask not working after 6 months but the company didn’t honor the warranty because she didn’t register it.
I think this is a good mask with caveats. First, I would only use the setting that focuses on red/NIR wavelengths rather than consistent use of their settings that include blue light (more info on some things to consider with blue light is provided at the end of the post). Next, while I am happy to see a red wavelength at 630nm is included, I wish they had ALL their red diodes at that wavelength rather than having some having some at 660nm and some at the less than ideal 605 wavelength. Second, I wonder why they went with 880nm instead of 830nm for the NIR wavelength. (Especially since max absorption has been found for 820-840nm. It’s not that 880nn can’t be effective, it just struck me as odd). The reason I don’t love the inclusion of wavelengths that don’t have evidence behind them is because I don’t know what the distribution of lights is while it is for the red setting (for example, it would be a bummer if it is primarily the 605 wavelength). So personally, I prefer the masks that just include 633 nm and 830nm because I know that all of what I am getting are the ideal wavelengths. One perk of this mask is that the higher irradiance means that it also has a shorter treatment time (3 min). However, that doesn’t mean this mask is stronger/more effective, it just means you get to spend less time wearing the mask (which is a big perk for some). In terms of design/fit, I have heard the complaint that the strap breaks easily and then you have to hold in up (or lie down with it on) and I believe Caroline Hirons noted that this is too small for her face. So in terms of the hard style masks, i would look at the dimensions I provided and see if there are some that have larger dimensions in my chart.
FDA 510(k) premarket notification: Here and here (this one included the 415nm)
This one is available LOTS of places. So it could make it easier to find a good deal (or at least see which store has the best Rakuten cash back). Skinstore; Sephora; Dermstore; SpaceNK; Nordstrom; Violet Grey; LovelySkin; Bloomingdales

$329

$ 296

Wavelengths: 415nm; 605nm; 660nm; 880nm
Irradiance: 11-60 mW/cm2 (depending on mode)
Treatment time: 3 min (7x/week)
Fluence: 2-11 J/cm2
Style: Hard (22 cm x 20 cm)
Warranty: 1 year limited

If you really want the Dr. Dennis Gross Mask, I would probably consider getting this one instead. The Qure mask has the same wavelengths, shape, and nearly identical irradiance as the DDG Faceware Spectralite and it has an app that goes with it. In the app you can just use the blue+red light on one portion of your face (so that is nice because as I have said over and over–I am not a face of having blue light all over my face. So if you had a bad breakout on one cheek, you could just have the blue light treatment there and use Red + NIR everywhere else). And it’s cheaper. It is $296 after you use the code VANESSA10.
My same complaints about the DDG wavelengths apply here. So read the DDG summary for that info
The best part about the DDG and Qure is that it is only 3 minutes. So while it doesn’t have my ideal wavelengths, using the mask consistently is what is most important. So if you are more likely to consistently use a 3 min mask versus a 10 min one, I would get the Qure mask (and I would stick with the red setting for the primary mode to consistently use).
The wavelengths and the irradiance for each wavelength are as follows (note that you can’t just add up the irradiance for each wavelength to get the total irradiance–the only time the irradiance is additive is when the wavelengths are sharing a double chip–instead I would say that that red setting ranges from 11-40 mW/cm2) and the red+ blue setting ranges from 40-60: 415nm (60 mW/cm2); 605nm (26 mW/cm2); 630nm (26 mW/cm2); 660nm (40 mW/cm2); 880nm (11 mW/cm2).

$ 1900

Wavelengths: 415nm; 630nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 29 mW/cm2 (red + NIR); 44 mW/cm2 (Blue + Red)
Treatment time: 10 min (5x/week)
Fluence: 17.4 - 26.4 J/cm2
Style: Hard (24cm x 20 cm)
Warranty: Limited 2 year

**This mask has been significantly updated from the version I previously shared in 2021** Here are the differences:
- The previous mask only had an irradiance of 10.9-14.3 mW/cm2.
- This one has fitted silicone eyewear for the blue light setting.
- This got rid of the 520nm and 580 nm wavelengths. This is a big improvement in my opinion because the 520nm-580nm wavelengths have minimal empirical evidence for their effects using low level light therapy (studies that use these wavelengths for pigmentation use intense pulsed light with MUCH higher power which is different from LED at home masks that use low level light therapy).
- This one now has 3 modes instead of 2 (Anti-Aging, Acne and Pigmentation) HOWEVER… it is actually just two identical modes. More on that below.
- This one has a new neck Attachment
The acne mode is evidence based and all good. It uses 415nm and 630nm.
I chatted with their customer service and asked for additional details about the 3 modes they offer and they said “MODE 1 emits light in the Red and Near-infrared region of the light spectrum and treats the visible signs of aging such as facial wrinkles. MODE 3 emits light in the Red and Near-infrared region of the light spectrum and treats the visible signs of photoaging, evens skin tone and helps reduce age spots.”
- Notice that the bolded text is exactly the same. So I asked if Mode 1 and Mode 3 had the same treatment duration time. They said yes–both are 10 min long. So both use the same irradiance and have the same treatment time and I confirmed that both have the same combination of red and NIR diodes. AND YET, they created two different modes that would have the EXACT say effect on the skin. Just say there is ONE Red + NIR mode (not 2) and a Blue + Red mode.
- The dumb this is that both 630 and 830 have evidence that they treat both aging such as wrinkles AND visible signs of photoaging, such as evening skin tone and helping reduce age spots. SO WHY MAKE TWO MODES? I think they wanted to say it has THREE modes (whereas other masks like the DDG has two) to help justify their marked up price. But maybe that is just a cynical point of view.
Unfortunately, this one still needs be plugged in while in use (which I personally find to be an inconvenience but I guess that depends on where you have power outlets to plug in to!)
They still always highlight the number of lights, but as I noted previously, the number of lights doesn’t matter. The irradiance and wavelengths matter most.
They priced it ridiculously high. Just remember that more expensive doesn’t mean it is better.

₤ 1,440

Wavelengths: 415nm; 520nm; 580nm; 630nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 10.9-14.3 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 20 min (2-3x/week)
Fluence: 6.5-8.6 mW/cm2
Style: Hard (24cm x 20 cm)
Warranty: 1 year

This is a mask that has focused heavily on the highlighting the large number of lights as well as the number of wavelengths as a key selling point for why they say it is the best.. but looking at the key parameters it has a much lower irradiance than I had anticipated which means longer treatment duration times. Also, see the graphic in this post which highlights that the number of lights doesn’t matter. The irradiance and wavelengths matter most).
While it is good that is includes 630nm and 830nm, the 520nm-580nm wavelengths have minimal empirical evidence for their effects using low level light therapy (studies that use these wavelengths for pigmentation use intense pulsed light with MUCH higher power which is different from LED at home masks that use low level light therapy).
Another big downside is that it has to be plugged in AND it is so overpriced.
If you do a setting with an individual wavelength, here are the power densities
- 415nm: 3.43 mW/cm2
- 580: 3.19 mW/cm2
- 520nm: 2.57 mW/cm2
- 630: 3.44 mW/cm2
- 830: 7.46 mW/cm2

$ 429

Wavelengths: 410nm; 590nm; 630nm; 850nm
Irradiance: 77 mW/cm²
Treatment time: 10 min (3-4x/week)
Fluence: 46.2 J/cm2
Style: Hard shell (22cm x 19cm)
Warranty: 1 year

Added 1/5/24
The positive aspects of this mask is that it contains the evidence based wavelengths of 410nm and 630nm. The NIR wavelength is ok not not ideal (I don’t know of any peer-reviewed published literature clearly stating that 850nm should be considered the optimum wavelength. Instead, researchers agree that 810-840 is ideal with 830nm being the gold standard).
I am ok with it including 590nm (which as I have previously mentioned really has extremely limited evidence that it would actually be beneficial) as it doesn’t detract from the benefits of the Red and NIR wavelengths. You could simply choose to do an extra 10 min session just for yellow while still getting the evidence based wavelengths of Red and NIR. And if you have a bad face breakout all over, you could do a session of the blue. Importantly, the mask includes built in goggles which is necessary when you have a mask with blue light (which can be dangerous for your eyes over time).
The high irradiance of this mask is a concern (remember, stronger isn’t always better!). It’s likely to generate a lot of heat, which could be problematic, especially for those with heat-induced melasma. And if the mask generates heat, that also reduces light absorption in the skin. The design, lacking nose or mouth holes, might make the experience uncomfortably warm during the 10-minute sessions.
The dimensions seem a little short lengthwise, so you may not have great forehead coverage. I would measure your face before buying.
The last negative is, of course, that it only has a 1 year warranty.

$ 540

Wavelengths: 637nm; 854nm
Irradiance: 25 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 9 min (5x/week)
Fluence: 13.5 J/cm2
Style: Hard (18cm x 23cm)
Warranty: 2 year

This one’s parameters are pretty good (this is the mask that FaceLITE used as the predicate device in their 510(k) submission.) But in terms of where to buy it, it can be a little hard to find. But right now it is available on Amazon. And I have seen some on Ebay
The NIR wavelength is not ideal in terms of absorption (I don’t know of any peer-reviewed published literature clearly stating that 850nm should be considered the optimum wavelength. Instead, researchers agree that 810-840 is ideal with 830nm being the gold standard).
FDA 510(k) premarket notification

$ 1740

Wavelengths**: 460-470nm; 620-680nm; 760-900nm
Irradiance: Company declined disclosing
Treatment time: 20 min (7x/week)
Fluence***: 1.89 J/cm2
Style: Hard (33 cm x 28 cm)
Warranty: 1 year

Very expensive mask and the company is very guarded about the wavelengths and power. I found two journal articles that provided some information but otherwise the company declined commenting. The odd thing is that the parameters provided in the journal articles were not ideal. They didn’t provide the irradiance but they provided the fluence, and using that to calculate the irradiance gave a shockingly low number (1.5 mW/cm2). Also I couldn’t confirm if the wavelength of the NIR was 760-900 or if it had a more narrow band. This matters because research has found that wavelengths between 700-770 have been reported to not have any significant activity (Gupta et al., 2014; Karu, 2010; Wu et al 2012). Despite the low irradiance, a recent study by Kim et al 2020 found some positive outcomes.
A downside for me is storing this huge mask and having to use it 7 days a week for 20 minutes.
Another downside is that it only has a 1 year warranty [again, this is surprising given the price I would expect 2 year warranty]
**Reported via Kim et al., 2020a (doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000020568). Kim et al., (2020b) also report a more precise wavelength of 660nm and 850nm. The company did not respond to requests for information about the precise wavelengths used.
***Reported via Kim et al., 2020b (https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.13599). Based on this, the mW/cm2 could be assumed to be 1.5 mW/cm2.

$ 619

Wavelengths: 595nm; 630nm; 850 nm
Irradiance: 8-11 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 8 min (7x/week)
Fluence*: 4-5 J/cm2
Style: Hard (19cm x 29cm)
Warranty: 1 year

New addition to list as of 6/11/2021.
This mask uses red and NIR and discloses the irradiance, so those are two positives. But the NIR wavelength is not ideal in terms of absorption (I don’t know of any peer-reviewed published literature clearly stating that 850nm should be considered the optimum wavelength. Instead, researchers agree that 810-840 is ideal with 830nm being the gold standard).
Mainly the price and the 1 year warranty are some downsides.
And for me the large size is a negative because I always wonder where to store it. Also, while it only recommends 8 min sessions, the frequency is 7 days a week (I prefer the masks that can make a recommendation for fewer days a week given the irradiance).
*595nm uses 2.5 mW/cm2: 630nm uses 7.8 mW/Cm2: 850nm uses 8.3 mW/cm2. The “daily” mode has 11.2 mW/cm2: the “Calming” mode uses 7.8 mW/cm2; the “Secret” mode uses 8.3 mW/cm2.

$ 1,199

Wavelengths: 630nm; 845 nm
Irradiance: 50 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min (3x/week)
Fluence: 30 J/cm2
Style: Hard (22 cm x 31 cm)
Warranty: 1 year

This has great wavelengths, good irradiance, and it has a neck attachment.
But a big downside of this one is the price and only 1 year warranty and the high price.
Irradiance found via 510(k) document

$670

$ 426

Wavelengths: 430nm; 450-460nm; 520nm; 570-590nm; 630nm
Irradiance: 35 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min (3x/week)
Fluence: 21 J/cm2
Style: Hard (24 cm x 19 cm)
Warranty: 2 years

A major downside of this mask is that is doesn’t include NIR
The other negative is that it has a lot of unnecessary wavelengths. Personally, I would Just use the 630nm setting on this and I would avoid using the 430, 450-460nm, and 520nm.
Another downside is that it has to be plugged in to use (so it isn’t one I would use).

$ 70

Wavelengths: 463 nm; 510 nm; 527 nm; 590 nm;400-700 nm; 600 nm; 650 nm
Irradiance: 0.5 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 30 min (7x/week)
Fluence: 0.9 J/cm2
Style: Hard (20cm x 24cm)
Warranty: None found

Hard Pass.

The wavelengths are not good on this and it is missing NIR.

And the irradiance on far too low to be effective.

$ 149

Wavelengths: 390nm; 415nm; 490nm; 525nm; 590nm; 630nm
Irradiance: 29.8 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min (4x/week)
Fluence: 18 J/cm2
Style: Hard (20 cm x 24 cm)
Warranty: 1 year

There are a number of red flags for me on this one that would make me skip it:
- First, it doesn’t have NIR– if you really want to see the best results I would make sure the mask has red and NIR.
- They use 390nm which researchers have cautioned to avoid (Serrage et al., 2020).
- You could get this and just use the red 630nm setting (though red + NIR is more effective).
- The 490nm, 525nm, 590nm wavelengths are all ones I wouldn’t waste my time using.
- The company makes some bold and unsupported claims about their various wavelengths which is a turn off for me.
- It only has a 1 year warranty.
Note: This one has the shape and style that is found all over Amazon. It’s interesting that the irradiance of this is SO different front the Dermashine because I was wondering if all of these look alike masks would have the same irradiance (and were just the same mask, rebranded). But turns out that isn’t the case! So that’s a big lesson to not assume two masks would have the same irradiance if they have the same wavelengths, number of lights, and look identical.

$ 233

Wavelengths: 630nm; 830nm
Irradiance: Company declined disclosing
Treatment time: 20 min (7x/week)
Fluence: Company declined disclosing
Style: Hard (25 cm x 20 cm)
Warranty: 1 year

Red flag is that they don’t disclose the irradiance–but I am assuming it is on the lower end because you have to use it for 20 min 7 days a week.
Another negative is that it only has a 1 year warranty.
The main plus is that it uses good wavelengths.

$ 888

Wavelengths: 415nm; 590nm; 633nm
Irradiance: 34 mW/cm²
Treatment time: Unclear
Fluence: Unknown without treatment time info
Style: Hard shell (dimensions unknown)
Warranty: 1 year

Added 1/5/24
First major strike against this mask is that it does not include NIR. I personally think that the evidence consistently notes that NIR not only can contribute to skin rejuvenation but other benefits like wound/scar healing, inflammation, etc. I wouldn’t mind that this include yellow at 590nm if it ALSO had red and NIR. Yellow just has Extremely extremely (like less than 3 studies) limited evidence to suggest that low level light therapy in that wavelength can have skin benefits. I’d be willing to take a chance that it was helping but only if I could also use the evidence based wavelengths of red and NIR.
Another downside is that the mask only comes with only a 1-year warranty. So you are paying a TON of money and you may have buy a new one if lights go out of if the mask stops working after a year.

$ 1,095

Wavelengths: 460nm; 650nm; 850nm
Irradiance: 34 mW/cm²
Treatment time: 15 min 7x week
Fluence: 30.6 J/cm2
Style: Hard shell (dimensions unknown)
Warranty: 1 year

Added 1/5/24
The Avina XI LED mask has some features I like, but also several that concern me. It offers wavelengths of 850nm, 650nm, and 460nm. The Red and NIR wavelengths are a bit outside the “optimal” range. However, its the 460nm blue light worries me. I have concerns about hyperpigmentation with this particular wavelength, and it’s not as effective for targeting acne-causing bacteria as the 415nm wavelength would be. It’s a missed opportunity that the blue light isn’t at 415nm, which would have been useful for occasional use during severe acne breakouts. The mask has an auto setting that alternates between 10 minutes of blue light, claimed to “calm the skin” (which I find confusing and potentially indicative of a misunderstanding of blue light’s skin targets), and 10 minutes of red light. It’s unclear if NIR is included in this treatment. Given my concerns, I’d stick to just the red and NIR settings if I used this mask.
The mask’s irradiance is at a comfortable 35mW/cm², which is great and with a 15min session you get a fluence of 31.5 J/cm2.
The 1-year warranty is also a major downside (especially given how expensive this is).
Given these factors and the steep price of $1,095, it’s not a mask I would recommend to a friend.

$ 2,500

Wavelengths: 470nm, 520nm, 525nm, 590nm, 635nm, 850nm
Irradiance: 45 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min (3x/week)
Fluence: 27 J/cm2
Style: Hard (21cm x 26cm)
Warranty: 1 year

Added 12/28/23
There are so many red flags with this mask. TL;DR: This is a HARD PASS
First…. the price is ridiculous.
Second, they don’t seem to have a solid understanding of the science behind LLT, which makes me very skeptical about the quality of their device. Not only do they include wavelengths that have no scientific evidence to support their ability to deliver on claims of skin rejuvenation, but the company also uses color labels that are either made up or just wrong (like 520nm, which they refer to as “sky blue” when it actually falls in the green spectrum and they also say it has “violet light” by combining red and blue light which indicates to me that they don’t know what they are talking about. Wavelengths are specific to each color: red has one, blue another. Violet light has its own unique wavelength and isn’t just a mix of red and blue light. Light therapy relies on specific wavelengths for different effects, and you can’t create a new wavelength by mixing two different colors of light. If a company suggests otherwise, it’s a red flag for me).
I am sure they are hoping that mentioning the number of wavelengths or the total number of lights will mislead people into thinking this mask is worth it.. but more lights does not mean it is a better mask. And using wavelengths with no evidence to support their efficacy means you can be wasting time and money.
Also, if you like this mask because it include blue light, I would keep in mind that it does NOT include the blue wavelength that has been found to help with acne (415nm), instead it includes one that HAS been found to induce hyperpigmentation. So that is a big negative. (But it does include eye protective goggles which is great, and necessary, because blue wavelengths require eye protection whereas red does not).

$ 430

Wavelengths: 415nm, 400-700nm, 490nm, 525nm, 590nm, 633nm
Irradiance: 32 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 15min (5x/week)
Fluence: 28 J/cm2
Style: Hard (dimensions unknown)
Warranty: 2 year

Added 1/4/24
TL; DR: Hard pass.
There are only a few positives to this mask: it includes the red light at 633nm and blue light at 415nm, which are evidence-based wavelengths, and the irradiance is within the ideal range of 30-40mW/cm². Plus, it comes with a 2-year warranty. But that’s where the good news ends.
Not including NIR is the first thing that makes me pass on this mask right away. The Cleopatra Hard Shell LED mask’s approach to wavelengths raises some serious red flags. The idea that combining blue and red light to create “purple” light is a fundamental misunderstanding of how light wavelengths work. Each color in the light spectrum has its own unique wavelength, and simply mixing two colors doesn’t produce a new therapeutic wavelength. This misconception about “purple” light is a clear indicator of a lack of scientific rigor.
The inclusion of white light, which encompasses a broad range of wavelengths, is problematic because there’s no evidence supporting its efficacy in skin therapy. It’s essentially a filler with NO proven benefits. I don’t understand why they would include that and not NIR!? The cyan light, which can potentially cause hyperpigmentation, is another concern. It seems like this mask is trying to impress with quantity over quality, but in the world of LED therapy, precision and convenience are key.
Finally, it’s a hard shell design, which isn’t as versatile or easy to store as a flexible one (but that is personal preference) and it needs 15-minute sessions, 7 days a week. That’s way more frequent and longer than the ideal 10-minute sessions, 3-4 times a week. It’s just not convenient.

$499

$ 199

Wavelengths:390nm; 415nm; 470nm; 520nm; 590nm; 630nm
Irradiance: Not reported
Treatment time: 10 min (3-5x/week)
Fluence: Not reported
Style: Hard (dimensions unknown)
Warranty: 2 year

Added 1/5/24
TL; DR: Hard pass
This mask, with its array of wavelengths and attached neck piece, seems more like a gimmick than a scientifically-backed skincare tool. Let’s break down the critical points:

Irradiance: The absence of irradiance information is a deal-breaker. Irradiance is crucial for determining the effectiveness of LED therapy, and not disclosing this information suggests a lack of transparency or confidence in the product’s performance.

Wavelengths: The inclusion of 390nm is another major red flag. Researchers have cautioned against this wavelength due to safety concerns, so its presence is immediately troubling. The lack of NIR is another significant downside (and deal breaker for me). NIR is known for its deep skin penetration and rejuvenation properties, and its absence is a glaring omission in any serious LED skincare device. The other wavelengths – 415, 470, 520, 590, 630 – are a mix, with only 415 and 630 being evidence-based. The rest, especially 520 and 590, lack strong backing in terms of skin benefits.

Attached Neck Piece: While some might find the neck piece appealing, without the right wavelengths, it’s essentially a futile addition. It’s like having an extra feature on a tool that doesn’t perform its primary function well.

Marketing Claims: The company’s claims about the benefits of each wavelength seem exaggerated and not rooted in solid scientific evidence. They use other misleading and sketchy marketing tactics to create a false sense of superiority without any substantial proof.

Overall, this mask appears to be more focused on marketing and less on delivering a scientifically sound LED therapy experience. The inclusion of potentially harmful wavelengths, absence of NIR, lack of irradiance data, and questionable marketing tactics make it a product I would be highly critical of and unlikely to recommend.

$ 799

Wavelengths: 420nm; 450nm; 463nm; 519nm; 570nm; 590nm; 650nm; 850nm
Irradiance: Not disclosed
Treatment time: 5-15 min (3-5 x a week)
Fluence: Not disclosed
Style: Molded (16cm x18cm)
Warranty: 2 year

Added 2/26/24
TL;DR: Hard Pass for me
The company does not disclose the irradiance which is the first deal breaker.
The ONLY thing that I think is a positive for this mask is that it has a 2 year warranty and I am glad they included NIR. But otherwise, this is a mask that clearly just wants to persuade people to buy it because it uses a lot of colors, and 600 diodes and looks cool. But those aren’t things that have evidence to deliver results.
Their description of the 8 wavelengths included highlights that they don’t have a firm understanding of low level light therapy. For example, Let’s look at their wavelength claims and info and we can quickly see a TON of errors.
- “The FAQ™ 202 Silicone LED Mask features 8 clinically proven wavelengths. Red (420nm), [Vanessa Note: 420nm is NOT Red] near-infrared (850nm) and purple (450nm) [Vanessa note: This is also wrong] to reduce the signs of ageing, such as fine lines, wrinkles and sagging skin [Vanessa Note: Totally wrong. 420nm and 450nm are not going to do anything for signs of aging]. Blue (650nm), [Vanessa Note: 650nm is red not blue] cyan (463nm) and yellow (570nm) soothe inflammation, redness while fading hyperpigmentation and blemishes [Vanessa Note: There is no evidence to support that 463nm and 570nm will deliver on those benefits]. Green (519nm) and orange (590nm) wavelengths brighten the skin for an effortless, healthy and glowing complexion. [Vanessa Note: only 590 has Very limited evidence to suggest there are any complexion benefits]
Based on the dimensions, this seems really small (for example, the Qure LED mask is very small on my face and has poor coverage, and the dimensions for this mask are even smaller)

$ 222

Wavelengths: 415nm; 490nm; 525nm; 590nm; 633nm; "white"
Irradiance: 31 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 25 min (3x a week)
Fluence: 46.5 J/cm2
Style: Hard
Warranty: 1 year

- Added 2/26/24
- Built in eye guards and comes with a neck piece.
- I personally wouldn’t get this mask because it doesn’t include NIR, and that is a deal breaker for me given the evidence that red + NIR (or at least NIR alone) has clinical evidence to actually deliver results. Aside from 415nm and 633nm, it is unfortunate that instead the company included wavelengths that have little to no evidence to support their efficacy.

$ 90

Wavelengths: 435-500nm; 590-620nm; 620-750nm
Irradiance: Company declined disclosing
Treatment time: 15 min TWICE A DAY (7x/week)
Fluence: Company declined disclosing
Style: Hard (15 cm x 21 cm)
Warranty: 1 year

You can find tons of varieties of this same mask, some brands are Beauty ORA, DMH, Poosh, Dermalactives— Avoid them all.
Hard pass for me on this one. I wish I could show you how many people I was passed around to in this company trying to find out the irradiance. In the end they said they declined telling me… the whole thing rubbed me the wrong way. Poosh sells it among other places.
In addition to not revealing the irradiance, this has wide wavelength bands and it overlaps with wavelengths that are not ideal.
- First, it is missing a NIR wavelength.
- Second, the “red” wavelength goes from 620-750nm–that is extremely wide range (not to mention the research that suggests avoiding wavelengths between 700-780). Not saying this won’t or can’t potentially deliver results, but it is one that I am extremely skeptical of. Also, given the recommended duration (7 days a week for 15 min twice a day) I am guessing the irradiance is quite low.
This is another mask that is hoping that the appeal of multiple “colors” and the cheap price will entice you… but I would totally pass on this.

$ 90

Wavelengths: 160-195nm; 380-440nm; 430-450nm; 525-550nm; 565-570nm; 650-730nm
Irradiance: Company declined disclosing
Treatment time: 20 min (5x/week)
Fluence: Company declined disclosing
Style: Hard (15 cm x 21 cm)
Warranty: Could not find info

Hard pass for me on this one.
In addition to not revealing the irradiance, the wavelengths are both not evidence based and it includes some that research has specifically said to avoid (i.e., under 400nm)
- First, it is missing a NIR wavelength.
- Second, the “red” wavelength goes from 650-730nm–that is extremely wide range (not to mention the research that suggests avoiding wavelengths between 700-780). Not saying this won’t or can’t potentially deliver results, but it is one that I am extremely skeptical of. Also, given the recommended duration and treatment time, I am guessing the irradiance is quite low which means the wavelengths are unlikely to reach their intended destination in the skin.
- The company totally mischaracterizes wavelengths and seems to make up new wavelengths which is a major red flag. For example, they call “525-550 nm” blue light, which is incorrect. And they talk about “soft white light” and “clear blue” which are not real wavelengths. Basically, masks like this are what give LED devices a bad reputation–lots of bogus claims and inappropriate wavelengths and an utter lack of accurate and transparent information.

$ 99

Wavelengths: 405-420nm; 590-620nm; 620-750nm
Irradiance: Company declined disclosing
Treatment time: 20 min (7x/week)
Fluence: Company declined disclosing
Style: Hard (15 cm x 21 cm)
Warranty: None reported

New addition as of 5/10/22
(I am guessing is just some variation of the shield mask above)
In order for LED masks to actually be effective, the wavelength and irradiance are key. Unfortunately, this one doesn’t use evidence-based wavelengths AND they have a very wide band (ideally you want a specific wavelength with maybe +/- 15 nm variation.
- When that gap gets large that indicates low quality LED). In the red wavelength, this uses 620nm -750nm (that’s a HUGE span… not great at all. Ideally, you would want to see 633nm).
- The blue wavelength is better (405nm to 420nm wavelength, 415nm is the ideal), but blue light comes with downsides to consider and eye protection is necessary which this doesn’t provide.
- Then it uses “orange” (590-620nm) which doesn’t have evidence to back up its claims,
- An other major downside is that it doesn’t have Near Infrared. It is best to look for masks with red (at 633nm) AND NIR (and ~830nm) is where you have the best chance to see results.
Finally, the company doesn’t provide information about the irradiance (power)–and if the mask isn’t appropriately powered, then the wavelengths aren’t going to reach their destination in the skin.
Oh and the shape is silly–wouldn’t you want full coverage on your forehead rather than having a heart shape?

Arch Devices

$2495

$ 2,345

Wavelengths: 415 nm; 633nm; 830nm
Irradiance: 11 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 30 min (5x/week)
Fluence: 20 J/cm2
Style: Arch
Warranty: 2 year

This post was intended to just focus on LED Face masks, but Current Body sent me the Dermalux Flex to try so I thought I would include a little summary in this post. When Current Body first asked if I wanted to try this, I passed because I know it would be hard to use it consistently because unlike the LED Face masks that I can wear and multitask (usually that just means I am watching TV), with this device you have to lay down for 30 minutes with your eyes closed. My mind is too busy to let me do that and I would be bored in an instant. But when Current Body heard I had fallen and cut open my brow, they suggested I try it and sent it to me. Long story short, but it didn’t arrive in time for me to use it on my face to speed up the healing of that cut, but when it did arrive, I gave it to my mom to review.
My mom can’t use the regular LED face masks because her retinas are SO sensitive to bright light, but she is able to use the Dermalux because she can wear little goggles that make it perfectly dark. So, my mom has been using it for about 3 months and her review is that the size of it makes it hard to store in an easily accessible place so that has resulted in her forgetting to use it. Also, she doesn’t like how she has to use it for 30 min and wishes it was only 10 min like the Current Body Neck and Deck LED mask she uses.
When the Dermalux arrived I looked through the manual and found the irradiance information that I had been looking for previously and I was surprised to find that it wasn’t as high as I had assumed it would be. But the lower irradiance explains why you have to have such a long 30 min session (the lower the irradiance the longer you need to use it to get the appropriate “dose”).
- As a reminder, dosage is dependent on the treatment time. So while when Dermalux reports a 20 j/cm2 dosage for the red wavelength, that would come out to a 11 mw/cm2 irradiance (I used the equation dose/fluence = irradiance x .001 x treatment time in seconds). So the irradiance is actually lower than Current Body LED masks, but because the treatment time is 30 min (versus 10) the fluence/dose is higher for Dermalux. But if I were to do 3 sessions of the Current body mask (making it 30 minutes total), I would get a dose of 54 j/cm2.
Usually when LED devices (like various panels) are designed to not be directly touching the skin (like it is when you wear an LED device) the irradiance is slightly higher to account for that distance from the the skin to the device.
Given the price, I was expecting Dermalux to offer a higher dose with a shorter (or equal) treatment time as my LED masks. The biggest benefit of the Dermalux Flex is the size (but that also ends up making it tricky to discreetly tuck away but still have it be easily accessible).
But the coverage of LED is quite nice–it covers a lot more skin than any of my other LED devices so I can treat a larger section of my body/face at a time.
Also, something to note is that I have a number of friends and followers that have said that the flexible LED masks (and definitely the DDG mask) don’t cover their entire face. So if you are someone that needed a larger mask, this is a good option because unfortunately all of the flexible LED masks are essentially the same dimensions (Except for a centimeter or so). Given the large size, one way I have used this has been to lay it on my chest while I watch TV (it covers MUCH more skin than the Neck and Deck masks).
A final thing to keep in mind is that it needs to be plugged in to use it. So, for me and my mom, the size it takes up to store it (it comes in a massive carrying bag), the longer treatment duration, and the need to plug it in all make this really inconvenient to use.
BUT if those things don’t bother you, and you are someone that can plan to use this consistently and you are someone that wants to cover more skin, I am sure you will have great results because it uses evidence-based wavelengths and a good irradiance.

$ 1,800

Wavelengths: 660nm
Irradiance: 17 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 5 min (5x/week)
Fluence: 5 J/cm2
Style: Arch (18 inches x 11 inches)
Warranty: 3 year

Added 1/5/24
Doesn’t include NIR: The panel only offers a 660nm wavelength (which is an ok but not gold standard red wavelength). The lack of NIR is a major limitation as it greatly reduces the panel’s overall therapeutic potential.
Irradiance and Treatment Time: With an irradiance of 17 mW/cm² and a recommended treatment time of 5 minutes, the fluence (or dose) delivered is 5 J/cm². This is relatively low compared to some other devices like the Dermalux, which delivers a fluence of 20 J/cm². To match the Dermalux’s fluence, you would need to use this panel for 20 minutes. While this is shorter than the Dermalux’s 30-minute session, it’s important to note that Dermalux offers both red and NIR wavelengths, providing a broader range of skin benefits. Also, the Omnilux mask has a dose of 18 J/cm2, so to be comparable, you would need to lay under the panel for 20 min. I think having to wear a mask that you can move around in for 10 min is much more convenient.
A positive aspect of this panel is its 3-year warranty, which is quite generous and suggests a good level of confidence in the product’s durability and effectiveness.

$ 1795

Wavelengths 465nm; 640nm; 880nm
Irradiance: 4 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 30 min (7x/week)
Fluence: 7 J/cm2
Style: Arch (24 inches x 10 inches)
Warranty: 2 year

Added 1/5/24
Wavelengths: The panel offers 465nm, 640nm, and 880nm wavelengths. The 640nm (red) and 880nm (NIR) are reasonable choices, though not the most evidence-backed. The 880nm NIR is slightly outside the peak absorption range of 820-840nm, which is a bit puzzling since 840nm is typically preferred for optimal penetration and efficacy. The choice of 465nm for blue light is even more perplexing. The well-established ideal wavelength for blue light in skin treatments is 415nm, known for its effectiveness against acne.
Marketing Emphasis on Number of Lights: The company’s focus on the number of lights is a typical marketing tactic that doesn’t necessarily translate to better effectiveness. The actual number of diodes is less important than the quality and specific characteristics of the light emitted.
Irradiance and Treatment Time: The company doesn’t report the irradiance on their website, but they do provide the treatment time and fluence (J/cm2) so we can mathematically figure out the irradiance (which is 4 mW/cm2). Note that one of their other panels reports an irradiance of 6.5 mW/cm2, so this low irradiance tracks. What is most important to keep in mind is how low the dose it. That is why the company suggests using the panel every day (versus omnilux which says 3-4 times a week). That is because to get an adequate dose at such low power, you have to use it for longer. Spending 60 min under the panel would only get you to 14.4 J/cm2 (Omnilux you get 18 J/cm2 after 10 min).

$ 795

Wavelengths 465nm; 640nm; 880nm
Irradiance: 4 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 30 min (7x/week)
Fluence: 5.2-7.0 J/cm2
Style: Arch (16 inches x 8 inches)
Warranty: 2 year

Added 4/10/24
Same comments as the Celluma Pro because this is identical except it is a smaller treatment area and lower price. And this has only 2 modes instead of 3 (yet it has the same wavelenghts)

$ 2,495

Wavelengths 410nm; 612nm; 645nm; 655nm; 850nm
Irradiance: 12-13 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 12-16 min (5x/week)
Fluence: 9.2-11.3J/cm2
Style: Arch
Warranty: unclear

Added 1/5/24
The wavelengths on this are good and it provides the option to either treat with blue light or not.
The company doesn’t report the irradiance on their website, but I found it in their FDA premarket notification (here).
If you were to do a double session of the red + NIR settings (which has an irradiance of 11.8 mW/cm2) then you could acheive a similar dose (at 21.9 J/cm2) as the Dermalux Flex MD (which has a fluence of 20 J/cm2 for a 30 min session) and I like that its normal 16 min session delivers a higher dose than a 30 min. treatment using the Celluma.
I would just find out if they do have a warranty, and how long the warranty is, before buying. (I have asked the company but haven’t heard back yet).

HardPanels

$1390

$ 1,251

Wavelengths: 630nm, 660nm, 810nm, 830nm, 850nm
Irradiance: 34 mW/cm2
Treatment time: 10 min (3-4x/week)
Fluence: 20 J/cm2
Style: Panel (43 inches x 11 inches)
Warranty: 2 year

Added 1/5/24
If you want a full body panel, this is my recommendation. I was gifted the panel by the brand but only after I had already reviewed other panel specs and planned to just say that based on specs alone, this was my pick.The company wanted me to try it myself, and now I am even more confident in my pick.
After looking into the various panels provided by companies like Joov, Red Light Therapy Company, MitoRed etc. I grew skeptical of their irradiance claims. Then I found this blog post by GembaRed where they talked about how they were the first LED panel company to have 3rd party tested intensity and transparently portray the results on their product page. This level of transparency and commitment to validated specifications really lends to their credibility and is a huge reason they are my pick for a panel.
- They also tested the irradiance of many other panels and revealed that many irradiance discrepancies (here is the blog post. It is a great read).
Wavelength and dose: This panel uses a blend of evidence-based wavelengths–hitting the gold standard wavelengths used in skin rejuvenation research and including some other wavelengths that are more popular in domains outside of skincare rejuvenation (like 660nm and 850nm). It also has a great irradiance that isn’t too high to get hot but isn’t so low that you’d need to use it for more than 10 min. (if you stand further away the irradiance decreases so you would want to stand there for longer to get the same dose).
Also, the owner of the company constantly stays up to date on the latest peer reviewed published studies and really understanding the research behind photobiomodulation (their blog is am amazing resource on multiple topics. They have a great blog providing a synthesis of research related to the science of light therapy on melasma and hyperpigmentation.
Design and Convenience: The panel comes with a door-hanging kit, making it convenient to set up and use in various locations, without dedicating a permanent space for the panel. They also include instructions for how to build a stand, should you prefer that. I am 5’10 and when I tighten the pulley system all the way, the top of the panel is at the top of my ear–so I stand with bad posture for 10 min and its fine :). But the rope has a secure pulley-system so you can lower it and raise it to be at the height you want.
Comes with a 2-year warranty –which is great.

$ 399

Wavelengths: 415nm; 605nm, 630nm, 660nm, 880nm
Irradiance: Not Disclosed (but see note)
Treatment time: 3 min (7x/week)
Fluence: Not disclosed
Style: Panel (5″x7″ for each side; 10″x14″ total)
Warranty: 1 year

- Added 2/26/24
- FSA/HSA approved
- This has 3 settings: Amber, Red, NIR; Blue and red; blue, amber, red and NIR. I would do the Amber, Red and NIR primarily and limit use of blue light, but it is nice to have that option if you have some acne you want to treat for a very short period of time.
- The company won’t disclose their irradiance stating “The optical output is part of our IP (Intellectual Property) and we do not disclose this information as it is one of the key components that separates us from our competitors.”
- However, in digging through FDA premarket notification of intent to market material (and here), it looks like their other panel that does NOT have 415nm, has an irradiance of 70.16 mW/cm2 (keep in mind that panels have a higher irradiance to account for them not having contact with the skin). And then when the company submitted the premarket notification of intent to market for this device (here) , they said it had a similar irradiance. So I would assume that it has sufficient power.

Deeper Dive into the Research

Mechanism of Action of LLLT

Ok if you want to know even more about the mechanism of action, this section is for you!

The “photobiomodulation zone” comprises cells which have absorbed the incident photons, directly or indirectly transferred the photon energy to the cells’ own energy stores, becoming photoactivated (Calderhead, 2018). The light energy helps to enhance our cellular potential (helping our cells to function more efficiently), promote oxygen utilization within the cell, and generate cellular fuel (or ATP) (Barolet, 2018; de Freitas & Hamblin, 2016; Hamblin, 2016). Photobiomodulation stimulates fibroblast proliferation, collagen synthesis, growth factors, and extracellular matrix production by activating cellular mitochondrial respiratory pathways (Ablon, 2018). Therefore, LED light therapy aids skin rejuvenation through increasing collagen production and decreasing collagen degradation (which can be seen with the tightening of lax skin and the reduction of wrinkles).

LED light therapy is thought to improve tissue function
helping mitochondria produce more energy (i.e., improved energy metabolism)
decreasing inflammation
helping build the cell defense systems to increase resiliency.

Red and Near infrared (NIR) have a number of different mechanisms of action, but two main ones involve:

enhancing cellular mitochondrial function and ATP production through interacting with a photoreceptor called cytochrome c oxidase. Mitochondria are the energy-producing units of our cells. Think of them as the batteries that fuel all the processes of our organs. Enhancing the mitochondrial function translates into more cellular energy inside the cell, which allows the cell or organ (e.g. skin) to work optimally. When red and near-infrared light photons reach the photoacceptor cytochrome c oxidase, it helps the mitochondria use oxygen more efficiently to produce ATP.
Building up the cell’s antioxidant and anti-inflammatory and cell defense systems by creating a low dose stressor that the body then adapts to by becoming even stronger (known as hormesis).

Through these mechanisms, LLLT is thought to help increase the skin’s ability to resist the photoaging processes.

Skin rejuvenation is strongly linked to the wound healing process. For example, to repair damage from UV rays, your skin needs to be able to repair cellular and DNA damage (which is similar to what it does during wound healing). Red light can help this process because it stimulates collagen synthesis and fibroblast formation, anti-inflammatory action, energy production in mitochondria, and DNA repair (Barolet, 2018; de Freitas & Hamblin, 2016; Hamblin, 2016).

This next figure from Kim and Calderhead (2011) further illustrates the confirmed mechanisms of action for the three main endpoints of 830 nm LLLT (633 nm has beneficial effects as well), namely wound healing, the anti-inflammatory response through acceleration and quenching of the post-wound inflammatory phase and pain attenuation.

Some companies, and more recently estheticians selling products from those companies, have focused heavily on a cellular mechanism absorption theory as a justification for using specific wavelengths.

For example, here is a figure from a company that I’ve seen people reference:

The argument focuses on absorbance into Cytochrome C Oxidase (CCO). To better understand this theory and how it can sometimes be applied by companies to as a marketing device, I highly recommend this blog post (click here).

In this post, Andrew (from GembaRed) wisely says “Although the CCO theory is trendy and exciting that photons can directly impact mitochondrial ATP production, this mechanism has been found to be implausible in several contexts. It is referred to as a “dogma” and “paradox” by some critics. […] Instead of chasing THEORETICAL numbers like the action spectra of CCO, we used EMPIRICAL data from actual wavelengths that have proven to be useful in peer reviewed studies on Pubmed.”

Peer-Reviewed Research Evidence

I have focused this review on skin rejuvenation, but there is a huge body evidence looking at LLLT on wound healing and reducing inflammation. Here are a few snippets from that body of evidence:

Reduction in inflammation due to light therapy is one of the most accepted LLLT effects (Lopes-Martins et al., 2007).
LLLT has been also effectively used in “wound healing applications following surgical aesthetic and resurfacing procedures, post-procedural erythema, and in conjunction with photodynamic therapy” (Ablon, 2018)
Trelles and Allones (2006) found applying red light (633nm; 80mw/cm2; 96j/cm2) after laser resurfacing cut healing time in half. Later studies by Trelles and others found 633nm (82 mW/cm2; 98J/cm2) and 830nm (46mW/cm2; 55 J/cm2) improved post procedure wound healing.

My review of the research

In 2021, I conducted an extensive narrative review of research studies that used low-level light therapy focused on outcomes related to skin rejuvenation. Here is what I found.

Out of over 5,300 peer reviewed journal articles on LLLT, roughly 800 (~15%) focused on applications of LLLT for the skin (including wound healing).

About 48 of those specifically looked at LLLT in dermatology and roughly 31 were clinical studies (versus in vitro or animal studies) that used LLLT therapeutically for skin conditions. (For the purpose of narrowing this down, I excluded studies focused on healing or reduction in inflammation as those outcomes have been more widely established).

Finally, 17 studies focused on continuous waves of LED light with skin rejuvenation outcomes (studies that focused on acne were only included if they also focused on skin rejuvenation.)

Based on the empirical evidence to date, Red (especially 633nm) and NIR (especially 830nm) wavelengths are the best options for:

Stimulating skin repair (of cellular and DNA damage) which helps resist the photoaging process
Accelerating wound healing processes (and is great for post-procedure healing. preventing scars, or healing burns or bruises)
Reducing inflammation and redness
Enhancing skin rejuvenation (Fine lines + wrinkles + elasticity + skin tone)

When will you see results?

Across the various studies, the best results were not seen immediately post treatment, but later on at 4, 8 and 12 weeks or more after the final treatment. The pattern of improvement described by many authors describes significant improvements occurring 9–12 weeks from the start of treatment, with some visible improvement occurring as early as 5– 6 weeks.

Building collagen tasks time. And while things may be happening under the surface of the skin, often visible results do not become apparent until the 9th and 12th weeks.

Research Studies: Things to Keep in Mind

Many companies cite evidence from in vitro or animal studies. While those studies can be useful, it is important to note that studies that examine the effect of LLLT therapy tend to find a much larger effect in animal studies than in humans (e.g., Woodruff et al., 2004).
Comparisons of findings among studies of LLLT is greatly complicated by use of different wavelengths and dosages. Different wavelengths (e.g., 904 nm, 780–860 nm, and 890 nm) have produced conflicting results. LED companies often like to cite studies that use a similar “color” as their mask but when the precise wavelength, the irradiance and dose are vastly different than what the company is using in their device, they are truly comparing apples to oranges. (Companies frequently due this when talking about the benefits of yellow and green light).

Safety

Light irradiation with low power density has been reported as a noninvasive, non-carcinogenic, atraumatic, with no known side effect therapy to many diseases and undesired conditions. Typically, there are no safety concerns for LEDs unless they are blue or if the device uses a very strong power (>100 mW/cm2).

The main risks that have appeared in clinical trials were minor and self-resolving and include (Jagdeo et al., 2018)

erythema (redness) (but just in high power densities)
hyperpigmentation (in wavelengths under 600nm)
ocular symptoms (typically with blue light)
- If you are using a blue light, it is advised that you use eye protection (e.g., Kim et al., 2020 conducted a literature review and a case report case report demonstrating that retinal damage can occur in humans due to prolonged exposure to blue light.)
- “Whilst the perceivable dangers of LLLT are mainly related to retinal damage (both clinician and patient) and skin burn (mainly related to shorter UV wavelengths), the safety of LLLT is well documented in a number of standards such as US Code of Federal Regulations, American National Standards Institute and the International Standards Manual, and other laser safety books and review articles [21, 22]. This includes ‘The Guidelines for Skin Exposure to Light’ in the International Standards Manual (IEC-825) which states that an exposure of less than 200 mW/cm2 is safe, and the marketing and the use of therapeutic LLLT is approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Preventative measures such as safety googles should always be utilized to minimize any risks and therapeutic devices may utilize high-powered light sources (>500 mW) may be spread over larger areas to fall within the recommended irradiance exposure limits.” (Hadis et al., 2016)
- “Caution must be emphasized especially for epileptic and photophobic patients especially if LEDs are pulsed.” (Barolet, 2008).

Risk Mitigation Strategies

use protective eyewear

discontinue sessions if any side effects occur
limit the number of treatment sessions

Reference List

References

Ablon, G. (2018). Phototherapy with light emitting diodes: treating a broad range of medical and aesthetic conditions in dermatology. The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 11(2), 21.
Almeida‐Lopes, L., Rigau, J., Amaro Zângaro, R., Guidugli‐Neto, J., & Marques Jaeger, M. M. (2001). Comparison of the low level laser therapy effects on cultured human gingival fibroblasts proliferation using different irradiance and same fluence. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine: The Official Journal of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, 29(2), 179-184.
Avci P, et al. (2013) Low-level laser (light) therapy (LLLT) in skin: stimulating, healing, restoring. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2013 Mar;32(1):41-52.
Barolet, D. (2018). Photobiomodulation in dermatology: harnessing light from visible to near infrared. Medical Research Archives, 6(1).
Barolet, D., Christiaens, F., & Hamblin, M. R. (2016). Infrared and skin: Friend or foe. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 155, 78-85.
Barolet, D., Roberge, C. J., Auger, F. A., Boucher, A., & Germain, L. (2009). Regulation of skin collagen metabolism in vitro using a pulsed 660 nm LED light source: clinical correlation with a single-blinded study. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 129(12), 2751-2759.
Bhat, J., Birch, J., Whitehurst, C., & Lanigan, S. W. (2005). A single-blinded randomised controlled study to determine the efficacy of Omnilux Revive facial treatment in skin rejuvenation. Lasers in medical science, 20(1), 6-10.
Calderhead, G., & Tanaka, Y. (2017). Photobiological basics and clinical indications of phototherapy for skin rejuvenation. Photomedicine: Advances in Clinical Practice. Croatia: InTech, 215-252.
Calderhead, R. G. (2018). Current Status of Light-Emitting Diode Phototherapy in Dermatological Practice. In Lasers in Dermatology and Medicine (pp. 285-337). Springer, Cham.
Calderhead, R. G., & Omi, T. (2014). Light-Emitting Diode Phototherapy. Handbook of Lasers in Dermatology, 307–327. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-5322-1_20
Calderhead, R. G., & Vasily, D. B. (2016). Low level light therapy with light-emitting diodes for the aging face. Clinics in Plastic Surgery, 43(3), 541-550.
Calderhead, R. G., Kim, W. S., Ohshiro, T., Trelles, M. A., & Vasily, D. (2015). Adjunctive 830 nm light-emitting diode therapy can improve the results following aesthetic procedures. Laser therapy, 24(4), 277-289.
Calderhead RG. Low level light therapy with light emitting diodes. Consulting Room 2020;3(03):13–15
Chen, L., Xu, Z., Jiang, M., Zhang, C., Wang, X., & Xiang, L. (2018). Light-emitting diode 585 nm photomodulation inhibiting melanin synthesis and inducing autophagy in human melanocytes. Journal of Dermatological Science, 89(1), 11-18.
Chung, H., Dai, T., Sharma, S. K., Huang, Y. Y., Carroll, J. D., & Hamblin, M. R. (2012). The nuts and bolts of low-level laser (light) therapy. Annals of biomedical engineering, 40(2), 516-533.
De Cordova, J. A. (2021). Role of Photo-Biomodulation Therapy in Facial Rejuvenation and Facial Plastic Surgery. Facial Plastic Surgery, 37(02), 267-273.
de Freitas, L. F., & Hamblin, M. R. (2016). Proposed mechanisms of photobiomodulation or low-level light therapy. IEEE Journal of selected topics in quantum electronics, 22(3), 348-364.
Denda, M., & Fuziwara, S. (2008). Visible radiation affects epidermal permeability barrier recovery: selective effects of red and blue light. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 128(5), 1335-1335.
Duteil, L., Cardot‐Leccia, N., Queille‐Roussel, C., Maubert, Y., Harmelin, Y., Boukari, F., … & Passeron, T. (2014). Differences in visible light‐induced pigmentation according to wavelengths: a clinical and histological study in comparison with UVB exposure. Pigment cell & melanoma research, 27(5), 822-826
Enwemeka, C. S., Parker, J. C., Dowdy, D. S., Harkness, E. E., Harkness, L. E., & Woodruff, L. D. (2004). The efficacy of low-power lasers in tissue repair and pain control: a meta-analysis study. Photomedicine and Laser Therapy, 22(4), 323-329.
Falcone D., Uzunbajakava N.E., van Abeelen F., Oversluizen G., Peppelman M., van Erp P.E.J., van de Kerkhof P.C.M. Effects of blue light on inflammation and skin barrier recovery following acute perturbation. Pilot study results in healthy human subjects. Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2018;34:184–193. doi: 10.1111/phpp.12367.
N, Fritz K,Mordon S. Use of nonthermal blue (405-to 420-nm) and near-infrared light (850- to 900-nm) dualwavelength system in combination with glycolic acid peels and topical vitamin C for skin photorejuvenation. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32(9):1140–6.
Gavish, L., & Houreld, N. N. (2019). Therapeutic efficacy of home-use photobiomodulation devices: a systematic literature review. Photobiomodulation, photomedicine, and laser surgery, 37(1), 4-16.
Gold, M. H., Andriessen, A., Biron, J., & Andriessen, H. (2009). Clinical efficacy of self-applied blue light therapy for mild-to-moderate facial acne. The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 2(3), 44
Goldberg, D. J., & Russell, B. A. (2006). Combination blue (415 nm) and red (633 nm) LED phototherapy in the treatment of mild to severe acne vulgaris. Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, 8(2), 71-75.
Gupta, A., Dai, T., & Hamblin, M. R. (2014). Effect of red and near-infrared wavelengths on low-level laser (light) therapy-induced healing of partial-thickness dermal abrasion in mice. Lasers in medical science, 29(1), 257-265.
Greaves, A. J. (2016). The effects of narrowbands of visible light upon some skin disorders: a review. International journal of cosmetic science, 38(4), 325-345.
Hadis, M. A., Zainal, S. A., Holder, M. J., Carroll, J. D., Cooper, P. R., Milward, M. R., & Palin, W. M. (2016). The dark art of light measurement: accurate radiometry for low-level light therapy. Lasers in medical science, 31(4), 789-809.
Hamblin, M. R. (2016). Photobiomodulation or low-level laser therapy. Journal of biophotonics, 9(11-12), 1122.
He, X., Jin, S., Dai, X., Chen, L. Xiang, L., Zhang, C. (2023). The emerging role of visible light in melanocyte Biology and Skin pigmentary disorders. Friend or Foe? J. Clin. Med. 12(23).
Jagdeo, J., Austin, E., Mamalis, A., Wong, C., Ho, D., & Siegel, D. M. (2018). Light‐emitting diodes in dermatology: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Lasers in surgery and medicine, 50(6), 613-628.
Karu, T. I. (2008). Mitochondrial signaling in mammalian cells activated by red and near‐IR radiation. Photochemistry and photobiology, 84(5), 1091-1099.
Karu, T. I. (2010). Multiple roles of cytochrome c oxidase in mammalian cells under action of red and IR‐A radiation. IUBMB life, 62(8), 607-610.
Karu, T. I., & Kolyakov, S. F. (2005). Exact action spectra for cellular responses relevant to phototherapy. Photomedicine and Laser Therapy, 23(4), 355-361
Kim, W. S., & Calderhead, R. G. (2011). Is light-emitting diode phototherapy (LED-LLLT) really effective?. Laser therapy, 20(3), 205-215.
Kim, Tae Gi, Junkyu Chung, Jisang Han, Kyung Hyun Jin, Jae-Ho Shin, and Sang Woong Moon. “Photochemical Retinopathy induced by blue light emitted from a light-emitting diode Face Mask: A case report and literature review.” Medicine 99, no. 24 (2020).
Kleinpenning, M. M., Otero, M. E., van Erp, P. E. J., Gerritsen, M. J. P., & van de Kerkhof, P. C. M. (2012). Efficacy of blue light vs. red light in the treatment of psoriasis: A double‐blind, randomized comparative study. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 26(2), 219-225.
Kwon, H. H., Lee, J. B., Yoon, J. Y., Park, S. Y., Ryu, H. H., Park, B. M., … & Suh, D. H. (2013). The clinical and histological effect of home‐use, combination blue–red LED phototherapy for mild‐to‐moderate acne vulgaris in Korean patients: a double‐blind, randomized controlled trial. British Journal of Dermatology, 168(5), 1088-1094.
Lask, G., Fournier, N., Trelles, M., Elman, M., Scheflan, M., Slatkine, M., … & Harth, Y. (2005). The utilization of nonthermal blue (405–425 nm) and near infrared (850–890 nm) light in aesthetic dermatology and surgery—a multicenter study. Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, 7(3-4), 163-170.
Lee, S. Y., You, C. E., & Park, M. Y. (2007a). Blue and red light combination LED phototherapy for acne vulgaris in patients with skin phototype IV. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine: The Official Journal of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, 39(2), 180-188.
Lee, S. Y., Park, K. H., Choi, J. W., Kwon, J. K., Lee, D. R., Shin, M. S., … & Park, M. Y. (2007b). A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, and split-face clinical study on LED phototherapy for skin rejuvenation: clinical, profilometric, histologic, ultrastructural, and biochemical evaluations and comparison of three different treatment settings. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 88(1), 51-67.
Lima, A. M. C. T., da Silva Sergio, L. P., & da Fonseca, A. D. S. (2020). Photobiomodulation via multiple-wavelength radiations. Lasers in medical science, 35(2), 307-316.
Lloyd, A. A., Graves, M. S., & Ross, E. V. (2018). Laser-Tissue Interactions. In Lasers in Dermatology and Medicine (pp. 1-36). Springer, Cham.
Migliardi, R., Tofani, F., & Donati, L. (2009). Non-invasive peri-orbital rejuvenation: Radiofrequency dual radiowave energy source (rf) and light emission diode system (LED). Orbit, 28(4), 214-218.
T. Nakanishi-Ueda, H.J. Majima, K. Watanabe, T. Ueda, H.P. Indo, S. Suenaga, T. Hisamitsu, T. Ozawa, H. Yasuhara, R. Koide, Blue LED light exposure develops intracellular reactive oxygen species, lipid peroxidation, and subsequent cellular injuries in cultured bovine retinal pigment epithelial cells, Free Radic. Res. 47 (2013) 774–780
Nam, C. H., Park, B. C., Kim, M. H., Choi, E. H., & Hong, S. P. (2017). The efficacy and safety of 660 nm and 411 to 777 nm light-emitting devices for treating wrinkles. Dermatologic Surgery, 43(3), 371-380.
Ng, J. N. C., Wanitphakdeedecha, R., & Yan, C. (2020). Efficacy of home‐use light‐emitting diode device at 637 and 854‐nm for facial rejuvenation: A split‐face pilot study. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 19(9), 2288-2294.
Nikolis, A., Bernstein, S., Kinney, B., Scuderi, N., Rastogi, S., & Sampalis, J. S. (2016). A randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blinded, split-faced clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of KLOX-001 gel formulation with KLOX light-emitting diode light on facial rejuvenation. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, 9, 115.
Opel et al (2015) Light-emitting Diodes: A Brief Review and Clinical Experience.
Russell, B. A., Kellett, N., & Reilly, L. R. (2005). A study to determine the efficacy of combination LED light therapy (633 nm and 830 nm) in facial skin rejuvenation. Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, 7(3-4), 196-200.
Sadick, N. (2009). A study to determine the effect of combination blue (415 nm) and near-infrared (830 nm) light-emitting diode (LED) therapy for moderate acne vulgaris. Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, 11(2), 125-128.
Sanclemente, G., Medina, L., Villa, J. F., Barrera, L. M., & Garcia, H. I. (2011). A prospective split‐face double‐blind randomized placebo‐controlled trial to assess the efficacy of methyl aminolevulinate+ red‐light in patients with facial photodamage. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 25(1), 49-58.
Sawhney, M. K., & Hamblin, M. R. (2016). Low-Level Laser (Light) Therapy for Cosmetics and Dermatology. In Handbook of Low-Level Laser Therapy (pp. 1053-1084).
Serrage, H., Heiskanen, V., Palin, W. M., Cooper, P. R., Milward, M. R., Hadis, M., & Hamblin, M. R. (2019). Under the spotlight: mechanisms of photobiomodulation concentrating on blue and green light. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 18(8), 1877-1909.
Sorbellini, E., Rucco, M., & Rinaldi, F. (2018). Photodynamic and photobiological effects of light-emitting diode (LED) therapy in dermatological disease: an update. Lasers in Medical Science, 33(7), 1431-1439.
Takezaki, S., Omi, T., Sato, S., & Kawana, S. (2005). Ultrastructural observations of human skin following irradiation with visible red light-emitting diodes (LEDs): a preliminary in vivo report. Laser Therapy, 14(4), 153-159.
Trelles, M. A., Allones, I., & Mayo, E. (2006). Combined visible light and infrared light-emitting diode (LED) therapy enhances wound healing after laser ablative resurfacing of photodamaged facial skin. Medical Laser Application, 21(3), 165-175.
Van Tran, V., Chae, M., Moon, J. Y., & Lee, Y. C. (2021). Light emitting diodes technology-based photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) for dermatology and aesthetics: Recent applications, challenges, and perspectives. Optics & Laser Technology, 135, 106698.
Weinstabl, A., Hoff-Lesch, S., Merk, H. F., & Von Felbert, V. (2011). Prospective randomized study on the efficacy of blue light in the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris. Dermatology, 223(3), 251-259.
Woodruff, L. D., Bounkeo, J. M.,
Brannon, W. M., Dawes, K. S., Barham, C. D., Waddell, D. L., & Enwemeka, C. S. (2004). The efficacy of laser therapy in wound repair: a meta-analysis of the literature. Photomedicine and laser surgery, 22(3), 241-247.
Wu, Q., Xuan, W., Ando, T., Xu, T., Huang, L., Huang, Y. Y., … & Hamblin, M. R. (2012). Low‐level laser therapy for closed‐head traumatic brain injury in mice: effect of different wavelengths. Lasers in surgery and medicine, 44(3), 218-226.
Wunsch, A., & Matuschka, K. (2014). A controlled trial to determine the efficacy of red and near-infrared light treatment in patient satisfaction, reduction of fine lines, wrinkles, skin roughness, and intradermal collagen density increase. Photomedicine and laser surgery, 32(2), 93-100.
Zheng C., Rajabi-Estarabadi A., Hirsch M.M., Nouri K. (2020) Light Emitting Diodes and Low Level Laser Light Therapy. In: Madan V. (eds) Practical Introduction to Laser Dermatology. Springer, Cham

275Comments

Add yours

1

Claire on 19 Jan 2024 at 9:45 pm
Reply

Hi, firstly, thank you so much for the wonderfully informative post. I currently have an Aldi Solas LED mask (no NIR). Had I have been better informed before buying I would have opted for for one with NIR. I am 48 and my main concern is anti-ageing. I’d like to know, In your opinion, should I upgrade and would it really be worth the extra expense to have added NIR in terms of increasing anti ageing effects. And if so, should I go for the cheap option No7 Led mask, CurrentBody or the most expensive Omnilux Men. Budget is something of an issue, however this is an investment and I would rather wait and save up and get the best possible mask providing the differences really warrant the price increase. I have no interest in brands just stats. I would really appreciate your opinion. Many thanks & best wishes, Claire

Loading...
2

Claire on 19 Jan 2024 at 10:01 pm
Reply

In regards to my previous comment, I forgot to add, I contacted No 7 and they sent the following reply (see below) Thought it might be helpful. Just is question though, is the low power output for the NIR 7.3 mW/cm2 compared to the LED power output typical or do the more expensive mask have higher values for NIR?

There are 66 LED modules, which each contain a red LED bulb and an infrared LED bulb: 66 red, 66 IR, so 132 bulbs in total.

Measured power outputs from the LED bulbs are 38mW/cm2 for the red LEDs (630nm) and 7.3mW/cm2 for the infrared LEDs (850nm). This gives an average dose delivered to the skin of approximately 18J/cm2 for a 10 minute treatment and so 90J/cm2 over the course of a week (recommended 5 treatments per week).

Loading...
3

Lee on 20 Jan 2024 at 9:05 pm
Reply

Hello – Thank you for your wok on this. Wow.
Any thoughts on The reVive IIa LED panel or Celluma Home (not Celluma Face, I don’t have acne)? I don’t want to attach anything to my face. I would prefer a device for a bedtime routine. A little meditation, light therapy, and goodnight. Ideally, I would splurge on the LightStim Elipsa, but yikes, $2,500 is a bit much for me. I’ve spent two days reading about all of this and devices@fda made it even harder to pin something down. I find more in depth reviews about masks, not panels/domes, but would love your take if you have time.

Loading...
4

Anonymous on 23 Jan 2024 at 8:54 pm
Reply

Dear vanessa, very great post. In the Aduro face mask faq section the company reports that the mask has an irradiance of 30mw/cm2 while in your post you indicate 18mw/cm2.Is this because the mask actually never works at the highest power because it has several colors of led (not turned on at the same time) ?

Loading...
- 5
  
  Vanessa on 23 Jan 2024 at 9:53 pm
  Reply
  
  Hi! I contacted the company in Dec. 2020 and asked what the irradiance was the company said “The power density of the LED’s is 18 WM/cm2.” So it could be that they have a new manufacturer?
  
  Loading...
6

Anonymous on 1 Feb 2024 at 10:30 pm
Reply

Hi,
On the Current Body website, the wavelengths are not exact numbers, the infrared states 633+-10 and near infrared 830+-17.5. So the text here should reflect that.

Loading...
7

Anonymous on 7 Feb 2024 at 1:42 pm
Reply

This was just what I needed. Thanks for the very thorough review! I may go with the Omnilux men’s mask. However, there is another mask that I came across online, which is the Megelin LED mask. Could you please give your opinion of this mask as well?

Loading...
8

Skincare Brand Discount Codes And Deals on 13 Feb 2024 at 10:09 pm
Reply

[…] Omnilux: 10% off all Omnilux products with code GOALSLED (NOT a commissionable code, so if you use the code I would really appreciate if you shopped through my link) – for more about LED devices, see this post […]

Loading...
9

Anonymous on 15 Feb 2024 at 10:18 pm
Reply

Hi, I’m trying to find out what the fluence and irradiance of the FAQ 202 LED mask is. I can’t find anything on the web and was wondering if anyone knows and / or has tried the mask yet? I have the currentbody mask but I find it pretty uncomfortable, it doesn’t fit my face properly and also doesn’t hold very well with one velcro strap. Thanks!

Loading...
10

Angie on 16 Feb 2024 at 9:20 pm
Reply

Hello, have you looked into the San Lueur mask? I wonder how it compares to the Omnilux Men and which you’d recommend of the two.
Thanks!

Loading...
- 11
  
  Vanessa on 16 Feb 2024 at 9:30 pm
  Reply
  
  hi there! I have reviewed the specs of the San Lueur mask in this post. 🙂
  
  Loading...
12

C on 16 Feb 2024 at 11:24 pm
Reply

Thanks so much for this amazing review. Do you have any thoughts about the Jov LED laser mask? Would love to hear what you think. Thanks again!

Loading...
- 13
  
  Vanessa on 26 Feb 2024 at 10:17 pm
  Reply
  
  Hi! The company sent me the mask and I am just trying to confirm some of the missing information before posting my thoughts on it.
  
  Loading...
14

Gabby on 17 Feb 2024 at 4:56 am
Reply

Hi, I’ve been doing research and have heard red light panels work better and at a better price point. What do you think?

Loading...
15

Anonymous on 28 Feb 2024 at 2:39 am
Reply

Your link for the luxe renew goes to a different brand. Also it is the same as the one branded “bubloc”. Both iterations are usually $130.

Loading...
- 16
  
  Vanessa on 28 Feb 2024 at 11:17 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you for letting me know! I have updated the link. I looked at the Bubloc mask and that has different wavelengths, so it isn’t the same mask.
  
  Loading...
  - 17
    
    Anonymous on 1 Mar 2024 at 1:00 am
    
    Do you know the irradiance of the Bubloc mask? I can’t find any info on it
    
    Loading...
18

Enma on 28 Feb 2024 at 11:53 pm
Reply

Hi! Thanks for the thorough review and research! I bought a Numiere Time Keeper face mask. It meets all the parameter you suggest. The pamphlet that came with doesn’t state the irradiance value. I emailed the company and this is what they sent me(I can’t make sense of it)
The irradiance levels for the Time Keeper mask are as follows:

Light Energy:

55.7 units
Irradiance for Red plus NIR:

668.6 milliwatts (mw)
Irradiance for Red Light:

624.3 milliwatts (mw)
Irradiance for Blue Light:

501 milliwatts (mw)

What would be the irradiance value then??? I’m confused 🙁
Thanks!

Loading...
- 19
  
  Vanessa on 29 Feb 2024 at 9:25 pm
  Reply
  
  HI there,
  unfortunately what they provided you isn’t the irradiance info. it is supposed to be divided by the beam area (cm^2) at the tissue surface.
  
  Loading...
20

Kelly on 29 Feb 2024 at 3:16 am
Reply

Thanks so much for all of the unbiased information- I am enjoying my current body mask thanks to your reviews!

Have you seen any research on the effects of LED light on tattoos (especially micro bladed brows)? Just got mine done and I don’t want my mask to fade them! Thanks for any insight you may have 🫶🏼

Loading...
- 21
  
  Vanessa on 29 Feb 2024 at 9:28 pm
  Reply
  
  I looked into that when I first started using an LED mask a couple years ago because I have microbladed eyebrows and the consensus is that they shouldn’t. The wavelengths used in red and NIR light therapy are not the same as those used in laser treatments designed to remove tattoos or pigments, which specifically target pigment particles to break them down.
  
  Loading...
22

Anonymous on 29 Feb 2024 at 6:48 am
Reply

Hi! What about Faradbeauty mask? Thank you a lot

Loading...
- 23
  
  Vanessa on 29 Feb 2024 at 9:30 pm
  Reply
  
  If you can find the specific wavelengths, the irradiance (reported in mW/cm2) and the treatment time, you could use the information in this post to assess its quality. But in the meantime, I will add it to my list of masks to track down the information on.
  
  Loading...
  - 24
    
    Anonymous on 3 Mar 2024 at 12:56 pm
    
    I found 35 nw/cm2, but I didn’t find the density (joules). Treatments last 15/20 min. wavelengths 633, 830, 415, 605. 368 LEDs in 92 groups. 1 year warranty
    
    Loading...
  - 25
    
    Anonymous on 3 Mar 2024 at 1:01 pm
    
    I also found MAYSAMA which seems interesting because it also treats the mouth part (the mouth is closed). It has 40-45nw/cm2, but I haven’t found the density (joules). I couldn’t find the duration of the treatments. wavelengths 630-660, 850, 450. 138 LEDs. 1 year warranty
    
    Loading...
26

Rachael on 3 Mar 2024 at 8:14 am
Reply

Hi! You have been an absolute wealth of information, so thank you!! I was primarily interested in a mask that can do a combination of red, NIR, and blue, as I have very acne prone skin. It seems like the Dr. Dennis Goss hard mask is as good as it gets for a combo mask? I really was excited to learn about the Omnilux men, but I absolutely cannot justify buying two separate masks, one solely for acne. What are your thoughts? If you were in my scenario, which seems to be the best combo option? Thanks a ton!

Loading...
- 27
  
  Rachael on 3 Mar 2024 at 8:57 am
  Reply
  
  And for Vanessa, I have stumbled across the Megelin mask as well. It almost seems too good to be true, per their website it’s a seven color light mask: 460nm (blue light), 590nm (yellow light), 630nm(red light), 849nm(infrared light), 550nm(green light), 420nm(purple light), 490nm(cyan light). Do you know anything about this brand? I’m hesitant as there doesn’t seem to be very many testimonials out there. Again, almost seems too good to be true.
  
  Loading...
28

Anonymous on 4 Mar 2024 at 10:55 pm
Reply

Hi ! Thank you soooo much for this in depth information! I’ve decided to go with the Omnilux men’s , however I’m considering a second device with the blue for breakouts, would you recommend the Glow , or just buying the blemish eraser from Omnilux? Ideally the mask would have blue LEDS along with red and infrared but since I’ll only be using the blue for occasional breakouts I’m ok with buying something smaller to spot treat . Thanks!

Loading...
29

Anonymous on 5 Mar 2024 at 9:02 am
Reply

Hi! Vanessa, you say that you prefer not to use blue light over entire face to avoid hyperpigmentation, so you just spot treat acne with a handheld device using appropriate wavelengths (415nm + 633nm). Can you share which device you use for this purpose, or other devices you would recommend?

Loading...
- 30
  
  cheifsassofficer on 15 Apr 2024 at 2:05 am
  Reply
  
  I’d also love to know! 🙂
  
  Loading...
- 31
  
  cheifsassofficer on 15 Apr 2024 at 2:11 am
  Reply
  
  ah, I found she’s answered this on another blog post: https://goalstogetglowing.com/2023/11/03/solawave-review-is-it-worth-it/#comment-17150
  
  “What about a handheld with Blue + Red light?
  
  I don’t like to use blue light all over my face because it has the potential to cause hyperpigmentation with continued use, so I prefer to spot treat particularly bad pimples with a handheld device that has the ideal, and evidence-based, wavelengths for acne.
  
  So, I purchased the reVive Light Therapy | Glo Acne Treatment Device to spot treat particularly stubborn blemishes and I am very happy with that device. It has the ideal evidence based wavelengths of 415nm and 630nm and while the company refused to tell me the irradiance, they said it was similar to the irradiance as the reVive Perioral LED Light Therapy system which has a high irradiance. And the best part is that it is only $39. “
  
  Loading...
32

Kat on 5 Mar 2024 at 3:56 pm
Reply

What a fantastic article – so much information! One reasonably priced and quite appealing mask to add would be Sensse, quite common here in Europe. And another thing I would be interested in is comparing the dr Dennis Gross body mask to the face masks for the three key criteria. Thank you for all your work on this!

Loading...
33

Anonymous on 5 Mar 2024 at 8:37 pm
Reply

Thank you for providing so much detailed information. It is incredibly helpful.

Loading...
34

Sierra on 6 Mar 2024 at 1:45 am
Reply

Amazing post. Appreciate your time and expertise. Have you reviewed panels yet?

Loading...
35

taysha on 8 Mar 2024 at 6:08 pm
Reply

amazing blog post! thank you for taking the time to do the research! can you review the Trophy Skin RejuvaliteMD Anti-Aging Red LED Light Therapy please?

Loading...
36

Anonymous on 11 Mar 2024 at 7:52 pm
Reply

Hi Vanessa, thank you so much for sharing your knowledge. Do you know if LED masks will cause broken capillaries or make them worse? Thank you again!!

Loading...
37

Anonymous on 12 Mar 2024 at 2:17 pm
Reply

Hi, I am glad to see that you have updated the style again. I would like to share with you the data from my testing of Amiro mask. Most of the irradiance of the mask is only on the lamp beads, so I measured the actual face to face irradiance of Amiro, which is very different from 77mw/cm ，its irradiance is less than 2mw/cm actually. And the average irradiance of curentbody （white one ）is 1mw/cm actually.

Loading...
38

Georgie on 14 Mar 2024 at 8:25 pm
Reply

Thanks so much for the detailed page!!! I was wondering if you’ve looked into the BeautyPie mask? It seems too good to be true based on the price, and I couldn’t see any info about the irradiance etc on their website…

Loading...
39

Anonymous on 15 Mar 2024 at 3:49 pm
Reply

Thank you for all your work on such a well written article with so much depth. It will help me to weed out the marketing and get the real info. Unfortunately, no all brands want to share the relevant info for calculations so that makes me suspicious about them. Again, than you!

Loading...
40

Anonymous on 16 Mar 2024 at 11:40 pm
Reply

This is super helpful! Any chance you can do a review on Megelin? From a financial perspective, this seems to check all the boxes (and more!) but it would be good to know if it works as well as the others on this list. Thanks!

Loading...
41

Anonymous on 17 Mar 2024 at 11:38 am
Reply

This is a fantastic read, thank you immensely for the time and research.

Loading...
42

Anonymous on 19 Mar 2024 at 10:28 pm
Reply

Thank you so much for your research. You have helped me immensely in understanding light therapy. I am researching for my 20 year old daughter who is dealing with ongoing moderate acne. Based on everything I have read here, I would buy the omnilux clear. However, it seems expensive for the single purpose use and also, it’s backordered until April. Now I’m wondering about a handheld device instead. You talked about using one for spot treating. I have read your comments on the revive light therapy device and I’m wondering if you would recommend this over a mask for acne purposes.

Loading...
- 43
  
  cheifsassofficer on 15 Apr 2024 at 2:06 am
  Reply
  
  I’d also love to know! 🙂
  
  Loading...
- 44
  
  cheifsassofficer on 15 Apr 2024 at 2:10 am
  Reply
  
  ah, I found she’s answered this on another blog post: https://goalstogetglowing.com/2023/11/03/solawave-review-is-it-worth-it/#comment-17150
  
  “What about a handheld with Blue + Red light?
  
  I don’t like to use blue light all over my face because it has the potential to cause hyperpigmentation with continued use, so I prefer to spot treat particularly bad pimples with a handheld device that has the ideal, and evidence-based, wavelengths for acne.
  
  So, I purchased the reVive Light Therapy | Glo Acne Treatment Device to spot treat particularly stubborn blemishes and I am very happy with that device. It has the ideal evidence based wavelengths of 415nm and 630nm and while the company refused to tell me the irradiance, they said it was similar to the irradiance as the reVive Perioral LED Light Therapy system which has a high irradiance. And the best part is that it is only $39. “
  
  Loading...
45

Anonymous on 21 Mar 2024 at 6:12 pm
Reply

Phenomenal article, well written and lots of information, thank you. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the Regenalight Mask — Not a flexible mask, but meets all the suggested criteria for wavelengths, irradiance, and is wireless! Didn’t see it on your list 🙂

Loading...
46

Anonymous on 28 Mar 2024 at 4:55 pm
Reply

Hello! Thank you so much for such a thorough analysis! You are the best ! Could you, please, give your opinion on the Iborria Led mask ? My friend bought it and I was considering buying the same but have some doubts. It has the irradiance of 40 mW / cm2, wavelengths conform to the right levels. Would love to know your opinion. Thank you in advance !

Loading...
47

Abbie on 28 Mar 2024 at 6:40 pm
Reply

Hi! I’m not sure if you or other commenters have addressed it (didn’t see it using cntrl F). Does skin color matter when choosing an LED face mask?

Loading...
48

Anonymous on 1 Apr 2024 at 5:30 am
Reply

Would you be able to compare red light therapy panels as well? Is there anything to consider if looking at choosing a mask over a panel? Thanks! This is all super helpful.

Loading...
49

Lisa workman on 4 Apr 2024 at 6:07 pm
Reply

Hi there. What a fabulous review. Thank you.

I have a Clearlight sauna with color light therapy. Would you be able to give me your opinion on their color light therapy? That may be a lot to ask. Please and thank you

Loading...
50

Anonymous on 4 Apr 2024 at 7:01 pm
Reply

Dear Vanessa, appreciate the informative post. What a lot of work! I’m curious about the blackout goggles your mother uses :). Can you recommend a brand? A couple that I’ve tried from Amazon fit poorly.

Loading...
51

Spanko Skincare Routine - The Enlightened Spanko on 7 Apr 2024 at 7:29 pm
Reply

[…] pain from arthritis, neuropathy, and fibromyalgia. What to look for in a red light therapy device: LINK Red light therapy devices recommended by r/redlighttherapy: […]

Loading...
52

Angela on 8 Apr 2024 at 8:30 pm
Reply

This is super helpful, thank you! Two questions: have you examined the Qure mask? Intrigued by the customizable treatment zones and that it includes blue light in addition to red and infrared, otherwise am leaning to the Omnilux Men. I do have sensitive skin and take allergy meds daily so that’s a consideration with any mask.

Also have you done any research on the safety of the neck/chest devices on thyroid? I see some studies saying red light can actually boost thyroid function but as I have a healthy thyroid, I don’t know that I want to mess with it at all. Haven’t seen any of the manufacturers address this directly though. Thank you!

Loading...
53

Julie on 12 Apr 2024 at 7:25 pm
Reply

Any reviews done on the NovaLight brand ?

Loading...
54

Anonymous on 14 Apr 2024 at 10:19 pm
Reply

Thanks for your thorough review of all these products! Based on your review I went with the Omnilux Men’s mask. It was sold out so I did a preorder for the May 15th shipment. I found the Omnilux customer service to be slow and unhelpful with my very simple, but important, question about my order. They kept giving me the run around and saying “flagged your email for review.” And that someone will get back to me shortly. It’s been two weeks, without any answers. I thought if this is how customer service is with my simple question, I can’t imagine how they would be if I actually had a problem with my device. I read similar complaints from people that purchased the device, so I cancelled my order. I believe it’s possible that you had a different CS experience because you’re an influencer and are referenced a lot when deciding on a mask. Just thought I should warn other people about their horrible customer service of Omnilux, so they don’t take your experience and expect the same from them.

Loading...
- 55
  
  Vanessa on 15 Apr 2024 at 5:17 pm
  Reply
  
  Hi there! I’m very sorry to hear this has been your experience! This is really surprising to hear. When I made the comment about them having great customer service, I was only basing that on all of the messages that I received from people who have purchased the mask themselves (I’ve had countless followers message me with nothing but positive feedback. But that isn’t to say that they don’t have slips, which they clearly have in this case.). I totally understand that companies will often treat me differently than an average customer because they know that I’m sharing my review. So that’s why I would only share that I’ve heard great things about a company’s Customer Service if it came from people other than myself (or if it was based on my experience, purchasing some thing anonymously). If you would email me with your name I would be happy to loop you in with this CS. I have already shared this comment with them and they said this was certainly not up to their standards and would work with you on a solution (if you’d like!)
  
  Loading...
56

Aleta on 15 Apr 2024 at 3:44 am
Reply

GOALSLIP isn’t working. Tried both Safari and Chrome.

?

Loading...
- 57
  
  Vanessa on 15 Apr 2024 at 5:04 pm
  Reply
  
  Hi ! Thanks for letting me know. It looks like they changed it so that the discount code for the lip devices also GOALSLED.
  
  Loading...
58

Aleta on 15 Apr 2024 at 3:57 am
Reply

Hi Rebecca,

Please review the Bon Charge face mask (https://us.boncharge.com/products/red-light-face-mask)

It’s cordless in use, 630/ 850, and says it’s 100mW/cm² — how could that be?

Thanks!

Loading...
59

Vanessa on 15 Apr 2024 at 5:06 pm
Reply

Hmm that is highly unlikely. It wouldn’t The first time that accompany reports in an irradiance that isn’t accurate (many don’t have any third-party verification of their power density). I’ll look into the mask more though.

Loading...
60

Anonymous on 16 Apr 2024 at 3:14 pm
Reply

Hello, first of all, I would like to thank you for this very exhaustive article about RLT, im sure it took you alot of time to write and I appreciate the effort put behind it. Unfortunately, I got the QURE mask before reading alot about the science behind RLT and the 3min/day might be problematic for me as I am a firefighter and cant realistically bring this in the station when I work. Also, how could the 3 min per day give the same results as the 5x10min/week Omnilux mask considering both fluence and irradiance is lower, I don’t get it ?

That brings me to my question : do you think I could use the Qure mask 6min/day to get the best results possible considering treatment time is not an issue at all for me, rather the daily usage? And if this is really a subpar product, il just buy an Omnilux one and try to return my Qure one or gift it, im not on a strict budget.

Thank your for your time ! Have a good day !

Loading...