The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Charge effect on the photoinactivation of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria by cationic meso-substituted porphyrins
Open accessAbstract
Background: In recent times photodynamic antimicrobial therapy has been used to efficiently destroy Gram (+) and Gram (-) bacteria using cationic porphyrins as photosensitizers. There is an increasing interest in this approach, namely in the search of photosensitizers with adequate structural features for an efficient photoinactivation process. In this study we propose to compare the efficiency of seven cationic porphyrins differing in meso-substituent groups, charge number and charge distribution, on the photodynamic inactivation of a Gram (+) bacterium (Enterococcus faecalis) and of a Gram (-) bacterium (Escherichia coli). The present study complements our previous work on the search for photosensitizers that might be considered good candidates for the photoinactivation of a large spectrum of environmental microorganisms. Results: Bacterial suspension (10 7 CFU mL-1) treated with different photosensitizers concentrations (0.5, 1.0 and 5.0 μM) were exposed to white light (40 W m-2) for a total light dose of 64.8 J cm-2. The most effective photosensitizers against both bacterial strains were the Tri-Py+-Me-PF and Tri-Py+-Me-CO 2 Me at 5.0 μM with a light fluence of 64.8 J cm-2, leading to > 7.0 log (> 99,999%) of photoinactivation. The tetracationic porphyrin also proved to be a good photosensitizer against both bacterial strains. Both di-cationic and the monocationic porphyrins were the least effective ones. Conclusion: The number of positive charges, the charge distribution in the porphyrins' structure and the meso-substituent groups seem to have different effects on the photoinactivation of both bacteria. As the Tri-Py+-Me-PF porphyrin provides the highest log reduction using lower light doses, this photosensitizer can efficiently photoinactivate a large spectrum of environmental bacteria. The complete inactivation of both bacterial strains with low light fluence (40 W m-2) means that the photodynamic approach can be applied to wastewater treatment under natural light conditions which makes this technology cheap and feasible in terms of the light source.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy – what we know and what we don’t
Cieplik, F., Deng, D., Crielaard, W., Buchalla, W., Hellwig, E., Al-Ahmad, A., & Maisch, T. (2018) · Critical Reviews in Microbiology · doi:10.1080/1040841x.2018.1467876 · Cited by 902
Tavares, A., Carvalho, C. M. B., Faustino, M. A., Neves, M. G. P. M. S., Tomé, J. P. C., Tomé, A. C., Cavaleiro, J. A. S., Cunha, Â., Gomes, N. C. M., Alves, E., et al. (2010) · Marine Drugs · doi:10.3390/md8010091 · Cited by 419
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Alves, E., Costa, L., Carvalho, C. M., Tomé, J. P., Faustino, M. A., Neves, M. G., Tomé, A. C., Cavaleiro, J. A., Cunha, Â., & Almeida, A.
- Venue
- BMC Microbiology
- Published
- 2009-04-15
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 70-70
- ISSN
- 1471-2180 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2003366636
- Cited by
- 227
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Charge effect on the photoinactivation of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria by cationic meso-substituted porphyrins. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2180-9-70
- The paper
- Alves, E., Costa, L., Carvalho, C. M., Tomé, J. P., Faustino, M. A., Neves, M. G., Tomé, A. C., Cavaleiro, J. A., Cunha, Â., & Almeida, A. (2009). Charge effect on the photoinactivation of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria by cationic meso-substituted porphyrins. BMC Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-9-70
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.