Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The photostability of tetraphenylporphyrin, zinc(II) tetraphenylporphyrin, and 5,10,15,20-tetrakis(1-methylpyridinium-4-yl)porphyrin p-toluenesulfonate was quantified in water and DMSO/water mixtures by absorption and 650-nm photoluminescence under 423-nm excitation. Under air in DMSO/water, the apparent degradation rate constants increased in the order TPP (0.033 min−1) < ZnTPP (0.046 min−1) < TMPyP–OTs (0.139 min−1); thus, TMPyP–OTs degraded about 4.2 times faster than TPP. Argon deaeration reduced the rate constants to 0.013, 0.028, and 0.034 min−1, respectively, confirming the dominant contribution of oxygen-dependent pathways in air; the largest stabilization was observed for TMPyP–OTs (4.1-fold). DMSO/water accelerated the degradation of TMPyP–OTs 5.3-fold under air but only 1.6-fold after deaeration, linking the solvent effect to singlet-oxygen-mediated processes. In deaerated water, increasing the temperature from 25 to 45 °C increased the rate constant from 0.019 to 0.048 min−1 (2.5-fold), revealing a significant oxygen-independent contribution. These data indicate that steric meso-shielding, metalation, peripheral substituents, aggregation propensity, oxygen, solvent, and temperature jointly control porphyrin photostability. The quantitative ranking provides selection criteria for porphyrin luminophores in hybrid nanomaterials: TPP-like scaffolds are preferable when high photostability is required, whereas the higher reactivity of TMPyP–OTs is advantageous for photodynamic therapy provided that oxygen and solvent conditions are carefully controlled.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vasileva et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: