@article{vacchi_albuquerque_vendemiatti_morales_ormond_freeman_zocolo_boldrin zanoni_umbuzeiro_2013, title={Chlorine disinfection of dye wastewater: Implications for a commercial azo dye mixture}, volume={442}, ISSN={["1879-1026"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.019}, abstractNote={Azo dyes, the most widely used family of synthetic dyes, are often employed as colorants in areas such as textiles, plastics, foods/drugs/cosmetics, and electronics. Following their use in industrial applications, azo dyes have been found in effluents and various receiving waters. Chemical treatment of effluents containing azo dyes includes disinfection using chlorine, which can generate compounds of varying eco/genotoxicity. Among the widely known commercial azo dyes for synthetic fibers is C.I. Disperse Red 1. While this dye is known to exist as a complex mixture, reports of eco/genotoxicity involve the purified form. Bearing in mind the potential for adverse synergistic effects arising from exposures to chemical mixtures, the aim of the present study was to characterize the components of commercial Disperse Red 1 and its chlorine-mediated decoloration products and to evaluate their ecotoxicity and mutagenicity. In conducting the present study, Disperse Red 1 was treated with chlorine gas, and the solution obtained was analyzed with the aid of LC–ESI-MS/MS to identify the components present, and then evaluated for ecotoxicity and mutagenicity, using Daphnia similis and Salmonella/microsome assays, respectively. The results of this study indicated that chlorination of Disperse Red 1 produced four chlorinated aromatic compounds as the main products and that the degradation products were more ecotoxic than the parent dye. These results suggest that a disinfection process using chlorine should be avoided for effluents containing hydrophobic azo dyes such commercial Disperse Red 1.}, journal={SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT}, author={Vacchi, Francine Inforcato and Albuquerque, Anjaina Fernandes and Vendemiatti, Josiane Aparecida and Morales, Daniel Alexandre and Ormond, Alexandra B. and Freeman, Harold S. and Zocolo, Guilherme Juliao and Boldrin Zanoni, Maria Valnice and Umbuzeiro, Gisela}, year={2013}, month={Jan}, pages={302–309} }
 @misc{ormond_freeman_2013, title={Dye Sensitizers for Photodynamic Therapy}, volume={6}, ISSN={["1996-1944"]}, DOI={10.3390/ma6030817}, abstractNote={Photofrin® was first approved in the 1990s as a sensitizer for use in treating cancer via photodynamic therapy (PDT). Since then a wide variety of dye sensitizers have been developed and a few have been approved for PDT treatment of skin and organ cancers and skin diseases such as acne vulgaris. Porphyrinoid derivatives and precursors have been the most successful in producing requisite singlet oxygen, with Photofrin® still remaining the most efficient sensitizer (quantum yield = 0.89) and having broad food and drug administration (FDA) approval for treatment of multiple cancer types. Other porphyrinoid compounds that have received approval from US FDA and regulatory authorities in other countries include benzoporphyrin derivative monoacid ring A (BPD-MA), meta-tetra(hydroxyphenyl)chlorin (m-THPC), N-aspartyl chlorin e6 (NPe6), and precursors to endogenous protoporphyrin IX (PpIX): 1,5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA), methyl aminolevulinate (MAL), hexaminolevulinate (HAL). Although no non-porphyrin sensitizer has been approved for PDT applications, a small number of anthraquinone, phenothiazine, xanthene, cyanine, and curcuminoid sensitizers are under consideration and some are being evaluated in clinical trials. This review focuses on the nature of PDT, dye sensitizers that have been approved for use in PDT, and compounds that have entered or completed clinical trials as PDT sensitizers.}, number={3}, journal={MATERIALS}, author={Ormond, Alexandra B. and Freeman, Harold S.}, year={2013}, month={Mar}, pages={817–840} }