Harmonizing Light Dosimetry: Illuminating a Unified Path
Henrik Clausen is Director of the Fagerhult Lighting Academy, as well as Associate Professor at Aalborg University in Copenhagen. He is tasked with keeping Fagerhult’s general lighting knowledge up to date, and that includes reading many scientific papers.
Sharing his thoughts on papers he finds especially interesting and/or thought-provoking is one of the aspects of this role he loves.
Recently, Henrik posed the question - ‘Can we dose the right amount of light?’
To a certain degree, we can. But, there is an underlying concern about light dosimetry, and here, Henrik would love to give you a little more to think about...
In the vast canvas of scientific exploration, the study of light's effects is like an artist's palette of endless colours. Just as different artists apply unique brushstrokes to create their masterpieces, researchers approach light dosimetry with their own methods and metrics.
These variations, while showcasing the diversity of scientific exploration, also raise a challenge — a challenge to compare and align different works of art or in this case scientific results, for a clearer, unified understanding.
Consider this: scientists from various corners of the world, armed with their tools and knowledge, delve into the realm of light dosimetry. They strive to capture the intricacies of light's influence on our well-being, just like artists capture the essence of light in their paintings. And, just as each artist's style brings forth a different story, each scientist's approach to dosimetry has the potential to yield unique insights.
These diverse approaches are like different colours on the canvas, representing the nuances of light's impact. But, imagine trying to create a cohesive artwork by blending those colours without a shared understanding of their shades and tones.
Similarly, without a common framework for measuring and quantifying light's visual, emotional, and biological effects, scientists find themselves facing a complex puzzle - how to compare their findings in a meaningful, standardised and comparable way?
It's as if a symphony is being played, with each musician interpreting the notes in their own, slightly different way. Yet, to create harmony, the musicians must follow a conductor's guidance and stay in tune with each other. Similarly, the field of light dosimetry needs a conductor - a common frame of reference that guides scientists in choosing the right "notes" (metrics and procedures) to measure light's impact consistently across studies conducted on different locations in time and space.
Imagine a world where different dosimetry studies are like puzzle pieces that fit together seamlessly. By aligning their metrics, scientists can create a clearer picture of how light affects us. This alignment doesn't have to be stifling creativity; rather, it's about providing a shared language that allows scientists to communicate their findings, methods and procedures effectively to their peers, for them to understand, compare and reproduce these findings, fostering a deeper mutual understanding and thereby the very understanding of light's biological and non-visual role in all our lives.
In this quest for alignment, researchers aim to bridge the gap between various brushstrokes of scientific exploration. By using common metrics and methods, they can enhance the comparability of their work. This, in turn, leads to a broader perspective on the effects of light, helping us understand the dosage of light we need for optimal health and well-being.
Just as artists contribute to a collective understanding of the world through their creations, scientists too, contribute to our understanding of light's impact through their studies. By harmonising their efforts, they create a symphony of knowledge that benefits us all.
So, as the world of light dosimetry continues to evolve, scientists work towards aligning their brushstrokes of discovery, painting a clearer, more harmonious picture of the profound effects of light on our lives.
Light and people
Light has always been a prerequisite for human existence. Inspired by daylight and the latest science, we can create lighting that makes life even better. Humans are made to be outdoors, and daylight affects the way we are – biologically and psychologically. New research has shed light on these links.
Read moreRelated News
Beyond What We See - What Could This Mean for Lighting Design?
Part 1 examined neuroscientist Professor Glen Jeffery’s research into the relationship between daylight, mitochondria and human biology, including the potential role of wavelengths beyond the visible spectrum. For decades, the lighting industry has understandably focused on visibility, efficiency and visual comfort, with conversations around lighting quality centred on factors such as light levels, glare control, colour rendering, contrast and colour temperature. But as scientific understanding of light continues to evolve, questions are emerging about whether lighting design may eventually need to consider broader biological effects. In this interview, Professor Glen Jeffery shares what these emerging ideas could mean for architecture, indoor environments, and the future of lighting design. Improving Spectrum Rather Than Replacing LEDs LED lighting sits at the heart of modern lighting systems. When asked whether he saw the challenge as improving spectral balance rather than replacing LEDs, Glen made it clear that the conversation is not about abandoning the technology altogether but about exploring how wavelengths could be reintroduced into artificial lighting environments. In one example, he describes modifying a standard LED luminaire by incorporating an infrared LED alongside the existing light source. “We’ve taken the standard luminaire LED, pulled it apart, and put an infrared LED in it,” he explains. The early findings, he says, have shown promising improvements in health in areas such as blood sugar control and visual function. However, Glen is careful not to present this as a complete answer. For Glen, the broader challenge is to understand better how the spectrum of modern indoor lighting differs from the richer, more complex conditions of natural daylight — and how future systems might begin to address that gap. Daylight, Buildings and Indoor Environments Daylight remains the benchmark for healthy lighting environments, and as part of his research, he tried combining LEDs to simulate sunlight, but he hasn't managed to achieve it. As buildings have become increasingly energy-efficient and environmentally controlled, he believes there may be value in exploring how modern indoor environments differ from the richer conditions humans evolved under. One area he highlights specifically is glazing and the way buildings filter natural light. “Glass is another big issue,” he explains. “How can we get more infrared through a window while at the same time thermal regulating the internal space?” Glen points to infrared-blocking glass as one example of how modern buildings may unintentionally alter exposure to parts of the spectrum humans historically experienced through daylight. His research highlights a link between countries where people spend most of their time indoors and diseases such as diabetes. “Saudi Arabia has the highest rate, followed by Kuwait. This could be because these are countries that move from place to place with little or no sunlight and infrared blocking glass in their buildings.” For Glen, this means future conversations about healthy indoor environments may need to be more holistic — considering not only how luminaires deliver light but also how buildings themselves shape and control the daylight people experience indoors. Lighting Quality, Spectra and Biological Balance Glen believes future lighting conversations may increasingly move beyond traditional measures of visual performance alone. “In the next 5-10 years, we are going to be talking about spectra.” In this context, spectra refers to the different wavelengths that make up light — not only the visible wavelengths that determine how a space looks, but also the wider wavelengths present within natural daylight. At present, much of the industry discussion around lighting quality centres on colour rendering, colour temperature and visual comfort. He believes future conversations may increasingly explore whether modern indoor environments are missing parts of the spectrum humans historically evolved with. “Have you got the right spectrum and are you delivering it at an appropriate power?” he asks. Could Lighting Become More Dynamic? One area Glen believes holds particular potential is dynamic lighting systems that respond more closely to human biological needs throughout the day. While the science is still developing, he suggests future systems could potentially evolve beyond static lighting conditions toward environments that change spectrally and biologically over time. Much of the research is still exploratory, and many practical questions remain unresolved. But he believes the direction of travel is becoming increasingly clear. We asked whether future lighting systems could become more dynamic in supporting the body throughout the day. He said: “The appreciation is beginning to get there,” highlighting his appetite for solutions that support the research. “This could eventually influence how workplaces, schools and healthcare environments are approached in the future — particularly in spaces where people spend long periods indoors.” The Challenge for the Lighting Industry The lighting industry may now be approaching an important turning point. He argues that one of the industry’s biggest challenges will be translating emerging biological research into practical, scalable lighting solutions. That process, he acknowledges, is complex and expensive. Questions around spectral balance, intensity, timing and long-term outcomes remain far from fully understood. At the same time, he believes this also presents a significant opportunity for innovation. At Fagerhult, we believe that wellbeing and human health should remain central to how lighting is approached. As our understanding of light and human biology continues to evolve, discussions like these offer an opportunity for the industry to explore how lighting design can support healthier, more thoughtful indoor environments in the future.
Beyond What We See – Exploring the Biological Role of Light
For most of human history, people lived almost entirely under natural daylight. The rhythms of sunrise and sunset shaped sleeping patterns, activity levels and the way the body responded to the environment. Today, modern life looks very different. Humans now spend 90% of their time indoors, surrounded by artificial light and increasingly separated from the full spectrum of daylight under which humans evolved. In conversations around wellbeing and the health of the human body, some researchers are beginning to ask whether light may influence the body in ways that extend beyond vision alone. One of those researchers is neuroscientist Professor Glen Jeffery at UCL’s Institute of Ophthalmology, whose research explores the relationship between light, mitochondria, ageing and visual function, including the potential biological role of longer wavelengths beyond the visible spectrum. This interview explores his research, insights, and the growing conversation about how modern indoor environments may be changing humanity’s relationship with light - not just visually, but biologically as well. The Evolution of Humans Under Daylight At the centre of Glen’s thinking is a relatively simple idea: the human body evolved under the full spectrum of sunlight over millions of years. “So many parts of your body and systems in your body were set over exposure to sunlight over millions of years,” he explains. “Your body has lost contact with your evolutionary history.” He explains that this evolutionary perspective is central to understanding why light may matter biologically. Human physiology developed in outdoor environments where daylight exposure was continuous, dynamic and spectrally rich. Modern indoor life, by comparison, represents a dramatic environmental shift. This does not mean modern lighting is inherently harmful, but rather society may only now be beginning to understand how profoundly modern environments have changed the way humans experience light. Beyond the Visible Spectrum When it comes to designing light, conversations often focus on what people can see: brightness, colour temperature, contrast, glare and visual comfort. Glen’s research, however, explores the possibility that wavelengths outside visible vision may also influence the body. “You only see a minute amount of the spectrum of sunlight, between roughly 400 nanometres (nm) to 700nm,” he explains. Visible light occupies only a relatively narrow band within the wider electromagnetic spectrum. Beyond it sit ultraviolet wavelengths on one side and infrared wavelengths on the other - both largely invisible to the human eye. Much of his recent work has focused on longer infrared wavelengths and their potential relationship with mitochondria - the structures within cells responsible for energy production. He argues that much of the sunlight exists beyond the visible spectrum that humans experience with the naked eye. This is where the conversation begins to move beyond traditional lighting discussions and into broader biological territory. Mitochondria, Energy and Ageing A significant portion of his recent work has explored how longer wavelengths of light - particularly around 670nm and near-infrared ranges - may influence mitochondrial performance and age-related decline in both animals and humans. A term many people may be unfamiliar with, but one that plays a fundamental role in the human body, is mitochondria. Often described as the body’s energy systems, mitochondria are essential to almost every biological process. “Everything you’re doing is relying on mitochondria,” Glen says. “Whether that’s using your muscles to kick your legs out of bed, or reach out for that cup of coffee.” In simple terms, mitochondria produce ATP, the molecule that powers cellular activity. His research explores how longer-wavelength light beyond 700nm may influence the efficiency of this process. “Long wavelength light lubricates each point where there’s a slight bit of resistance,” he explains, describing how photons may help support electron transfer within cellular energy pathways. While much of the science remains under investigation, Glen believes mitochondria may sit at the centre of broader questions around ageing, metabolism and human health. “The theory that sticks to the wall hardest is called the mitochondrial theory of ageing,” he says - the idea that ageing is closely linked to the gradual decline of mitochondria over time. As mitochondria become less efficient, the body’s ability to produce energy and maintain healthy function may also deteriorate. It is, however, important not to overstate conclusions. He emphasises that this is an evolving field with many unanswered questions, and believes the relationship between light, biology and human health deserves greater attention than it currently receives. Modern Indoor Life Whilst humans evolved under natural daylight, modern life is very different. People now spend much more time indoors than previous generations, fundamentally changing daily exposure to natural light. He points not only to artificial lighting, but to indoor lifestyles more broadly. Modern life increasingly takes place inside controlled environments, often with limited exposure to the full spectrum of daylight under which humans historically evolved. “We are making ourselves vulnerable because we’re living inside,” he says, “and we’re exacerbating that vulnerability with LED lighting.” Importantly, Glen does not separate modern indoor living from lighting technology itself. Instead, he sees them as interconnected parts of a much wider environmental shift. Beyond Circadian Lighting? Over the past decade, the lighting industry has increasingly explored circadian rhythms and human-centric lighting - particularly the role of light timing and blue wavelengths in regulating sleep and alertness. Glen does not see his research as contradicting that work, but rather broadening the conversation. In his opinion, it would be a mistake to think that light only does one thing. While circadian research largely focuses on visible wavelengths associated with the body clock, Glen’s work looks further into the infrared end of the spectrum and its potential biological effects. “These are two things that run hand in hand,” he explains. For him, the growing interest in circadian lighting reflects a wider shift towards understanding that light may influence people in multiple ways beyond visibility alone. A Conversation Still Emerging Glen believes researchers may now be approaching an important moment - not because all the answers exist, but because the questions themselves are beginning to change. For decades, conversations around light have understandably focused on visibility and visual performance. Increasingly, however, researchers are exploring whether light may also influence the body in broader biological ways that remain only partially understood. Exactly where this research may lead remains uncertain. But discussions around daylight, wavelength, and human biology are beginning to open new conversations about the relationship between people, light, and the environments they spend most of their lives in. In Part 2, we explore what these emerging ideas could potentially mean for lighting design, architecture and the future of healthy indoor environments.