Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 411, Issue 20, pp 5287–5296 | Cite as

Efficiency comparison of the imidazole plus RNO method for singlet oxygen detection in biorelevant solvents

  • Johanna Herman
  • Sharon L. NealEmail author
Research Paper
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Singlet oxygen (1O2) is the focus of study in many fields, including phototoxicity, antioxidant activity, pollutant weathering, photodynamic therapy, and water disinfection. The imidazole plus RNO (Imd/RNO) method, originated by Kraljic and El Mohsni, is commonly used to monitor singlet oxygen production. In this method, 1O2 is quenched by an acceptor, imidazole (Imd), during the formation of a trans-annular peroxide intermediate that bleaches the sensor, p-nitrosodimethylaniline (RNO). Though the method has been widely used, including to monitor 1O2 production in complex environments, such as surfactants and cells, studies reporting the efficiency of the assay in complex solvents have not been reported. In this research, the Imd/RNO method in complex, biorelevant solvents, i.e., sodium dodecyl sulfate, octanol, and phosphate buffer-saturated octanol, was compared with reference solvents, i.e., phosphate buffer, ethanol, and methanol, for monitoring 1O2 produced by Rose Bengal photosensitization using time-resolved, broadband UV–Vis absorbance measurements. Rates of sensor bleaching and sensitizer photodegradation were simultaneously monitored in each solvent to investigate correlations between the disappearance rates of sensor and sensitizer. The quantum yields of 1O2 production (ϕ) in each solvent were calculated using a relative actinometric method. The dependence of sensor bleaching and sensitizer degradation on acceptor concentration and solvent polarity, and the results of assay controls suggest mechanistic differences underlying the reactions comprising the Imd/RNO method. These results demonstrate the need for caution and controls when using the method in complex samples including those containing cells, tissues, or nanoscale particles.

Keywords

Singlet oxygen Imidazole plus RNO method p-Nitrosodimethylaniline (RNO) Photosensitization Photooxidation Relative quantum yield 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Yinan Zhang, Micaih Murray, and Mohammed Seck for their technical assistance and Professor Dominic DiToro for discussions that prompted this investigation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

216_2019_1910_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (327 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 326 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Pibiri I, Buscemi S, Palumbo Piccionello A, Pace A. Photochemically produced singlet oxygen: applications and perspectives. ChemPhotoChem. 2018;2:535–47.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cptc.201800076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Onoue S, Yamauchi Y, Kojima T, Igarashi N, Tsuda Y. Analytical studies on photochemical behavior of phototoxic substances; effect of detergent additives on singlet oxygen generation. Pharm Res. 2008;25:861–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-007-9383-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pastore D, Laus MN, Tozzi D, Fogliano V, Soccio M, Flagella Z. New tool to evaluate a comprehensive antioxidant activity in food extracts: bleaching of 4-nitroso-N,N-dimethylaniline catalyzed by soybean lipoxygenase-1. J Agric Food Chem. 2009;57:9682–92.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf901509b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fatima K, Masood N, Luqman S. Quenching of singlet oxygen by natural and synthetic antioxidants and assessment of electronic UV/visible absorption spectra for alleviating or enhancing the efficacy of photodynamic therapy. Biomed Res Ther. 2016;3:8.  https://doi.org/10.7603/s40730-016-0008-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fasnacht MP, Blough NV. Kinetic analysis of the photodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in aqueous solution. Aquat Sci - Res Across Boundaries. 2003;65:352–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-003-0680-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ray RS, Mujtaba SF, Dwivedi A, Yadav N, Verma A, Kushwaha HN, et al. Singlet oxygen mediated DNA damage induced phototoxicity by ketoprofen resulting in mitochondrial depolarization and lysosomal destabilization. Toxicology. 2013;314:229–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TOX.2013.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li B, Lin L, Lin H, Wilson BC. Photosensitized singlet oxygen generation and detection: recent advances and future perspectives in cancer photodynamic therapy. J Biophotonics. 2016;9:1314–25.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbio.201600055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trashin S, Rahemi V, Ramji K, Neven L, Gorun SM, De Wael K. Singlet oxygen-based electrosensing by molecular photosensitizers. Nat Commun. 2017;8:16108.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms16108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    García-Fresnadillo D. Singlet oxygen photosensitizing materials for point-of-use water disinfection with solar reactors. ChemPhotoChem. 2018;2:512–34.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cptc.201800062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    You Y. Chemical tools for the generation and detection of singlet oxygen. Org Biomol Chem. 2018;16:4044–60.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ob00504d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burns JM, Cooper WJ, Ferry JL, King DW, DiMento BP, McNeill K, et al. Methods for reactive oxygen species (ROS) detection in aqueous environments. Aquat Sci. 2012;74:683–734.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-012-0251-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Winterbourn CC. The challenges of using fluorescent probes to detect and quantify specific reactive oxygen species in living cells. Biochim Biophys Acta, Gen Subj. 2014;1840:730–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagen.2013.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herman J, Zhang Y, Castranova V, Neal SL. Emerging technologies for optical spectral detection of reactive oxygen species. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2018;410:6079–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-018-1233-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kraljic I, El Mohsni S. A new method for the detection of singlet oxygen in aqueous solutions. Photochem Photobiol. 1978;28:577–81.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1978.tb06972.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krishna CM, Uppuluri S, Riesz P, JR JSZ, Balasubramanian D. A study of the photodynamic efficiencies of some eye lens constituents. Photochem Photobiol. 1991;54:51–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1991.tb01984.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang SP, Zhao JQ, Jiang LJ. Photosensitized formation of singlet oxygen by phycobiliproteins in neutral aqueous solutions. Free Radic Res. 2000;33:489–96.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10715760000301031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu F, Zhou X, Chen Z, Huang P, Wang X, Zhou Y. Preparation of purpurin-18 loaded magnetic nanocarriers in cottonseed oil for photodynamic therapy. Mater Lett. 2008;62:2844–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2008.01.123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu F, Zhou X, Ni S, Wang X, Zhou Y, Chen Z. Preparation and properties of photosensitizer loaded magnetic nanocarriers. Curr Nanosci. 2009;5:293–6.  https://doi.org/10.2174/157341309788921480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rajendran M, Inbaraj JJ, Gandhidasan R, Murugesan R. Photogeneration of reactive oxygen species by 3-arylcoumarin and flavanocoumarin derivatives. J Photochem Photobiol A Chem. 2006;182:67–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2006.01.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Inbaraj JJ, Gandhidasan R, Subramanian S, Murugesan R. Photogeneration of reactive oxygen species from ketocoumarins. J Photochem Photobiol A Chem. 1998;117:21–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1010-6030(98)00317-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rajendran M, Gandhidasan R, Murugesan R. Photosensitisation and photoinduced DNA cleavage by four naturally occurring anthraquinones. J Photochem Photobiol A Chem. 2004;168:67–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2004.02.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Borisov S, Vasillev V. Formation of singlet oxygen photosensitized by water-soluble metalloporphyrins. Russ J Phys Chem. 2001;75:1890–5.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim CS, Jung J. Iron-sulfur centers as endogenous blue light sensitizers in cells: a study with an artificial non-heme iron protein. Photochem Photobiol. 1992;56:63–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1992.tb09603.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schaap AP, Thayer AL, Blossey EC, Neckers DC. Polymer-based sensitizers for photooxidations. II. J Am Chem Soc. 1975;97:3741–5.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00846a030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gottschalk P, Paczkowski J, Neckers DC. Factors influencing the quantum yields for rose bengal formation of singlet oxygen. J Photochem. 1986;35:277–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2670(86)87059-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen B, Siepmann JI. Microscopic structure and solvation in dry and wet octanol. J Phys Chem B. 2006;110:3555–63.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp0548164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kai H, Yan Z, Junfeng S, Zhenping J, Gongzhen C. Microheterogeneous structure of 1-octanol in neat and water-saturated state. J Phys Chem B. 2007;111:10160–5.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp072847o.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wilkinson F, Helman WP, Ross AB. Quantum yields for the photosensitized formation of the lowest electronically excited singlet state of molecular oxygen in solution. J Phys Chem Ref Data. 1993;22:113–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maryott AA, Smith ER. Table of dielectric constants of pure liquids [Internet]. U.S. Govt. Print. Off.; 1951. 44 p. (National Bureau of Standards circular). Available from: https://books.google.com/books?id=0qXhvQl5HFYC
  30. 30.
    Bilksi P, Chignell CF. Properties of differently charged micelles containing rose bengal: application in photosensitization studies. J Photochem Photobiol A Chem. 1994;77:49–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/1010-6030(94)80008-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Steel WH, Beildeck CL, Walker RA. Solvent polarity across weakly associating interfaces. J Phys Chem B. 2004;108:13370–8.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp048234i.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Steel WH, Beildeck CL, Walker RA. Solvent polarity across strongly associating interfaces. J Phys Chem B. 2004;108:16107–16.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp048234i.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bregnhøj M, Westberg M, Jensen F, Ogilby PR. Solvent-dependent singlet oxygen lifetimes: temperature effects implicate tunneling and charge-transfer interactions. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2016;18:22946–61.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C6CP01635A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kraljic I, Lindqvist L. Laser photolysis study of triplet eosin and thionine reactions in photosensitized oxidations. Photochem Photobiol. 1974;20:351–5.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1974.tb06587.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemistry and BiochemistryUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations