» Articles » PMID: 33948695

Laser Vs. Thermal Treatments of Green Pigment PG36: Coincidence and Toxicity of Processes

Overview
Journal Arch Toxicol
Specialty Toxicology
Date 2021 May 5
PMID 33948695
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Comparative laser and thermal treatments were carried out on PG36, a green phthalocyanine-based pigment, permitted in European countries where legislation on tattoo composition was issued. Prior to the treatments, PG36 was characterized by SEM imaging, EDX, IR and UV-Vis spectroscopies, revealing an excess of Si and C and O as compared to the pure halogenated Cu-phthalocyanine. Laser treatments were carried out with a Nd:YAG device applied to HO and propan-2-ol dispersions. Pyrolysis and calcinations were carried out in air or under N flow. The outcome of the different procedures was analyzed by UV-Vis spectroscopy, GC-mass spectrometry, X-ray diffraction of the solid residues, SEM microscopy and dynamic light scattering. The comparative analysis indicated the production of different fragment compounds depending on the treatment, (pyrolysis or laser), and, to some extent, to the solvent of the dispersion, with pyrolysis generating a larger number of hazardous compounds. Hydrocarbons and cyclic siloxanes present as additives in PG36 were stable or degraded depending on the treatment. The morphology of the products is also treatment-dependent with nanoparticles < 20 nm and fibers being produced upon laser treatments only. Based on the experimental findings, the equivalence of laser and thermal treatments is evaluated.

Citing Articles

Challenges in laser tattoo removal: the impact of titanium dioxide on photodegradation of yellow inks.

Aljubran B, Ross K, Alexander U, Lenehan C Arch Toxicol. 2025; .

PMID: 40047861 DOI: 10.1007/s00204-025-03989-2.


Developments in tattoo and tattoo removal toxicology.

Bolt H, Hengstler J Arch Toxicol. 2025; .

PMID: 40042589 DOI: 10.1007/s00204-025-04007-1.


Toxicological problems of tattoo removal: characterization of femtosecond laser-induced fragments of Pigment Green 7 and Green Concentrate tattoo ink.

Bauer E, Ricci C, Cecchetti D, Ciufolini G, Cicero D, Rossi M Arch Toxicol. 2025; .

PMID: 39812830 DOI: 10.1007/s00204-024-03953-6.


"For Asia Market Only": A Green Tattoo Ink between Safety and Regulations.

Bauer E, Cecchetti D, Guerriero E, Quaranta S, Ripanti F, Postorino P Molecules. 2022; 27(11).

PMID: 35684430 PMC: 9182426. DOI: 10.3390/molecules27113491.


Comparative treatments of a green tattoo ink with Ruby, Nd:YAG nano- and picosecond lasers in normal and array mode.

Cecchetti D, Bauer E, Guerriero E, Sennato S, Tagliatesta P, Tagliaferri M Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):3571.

PMID: 35246552 PMC: 8897463. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07021-w.

References
1.
Alsing K, Johannesen H, Hansen R, Serup J . Tattoo complications and magnetic resonance imaging: a comprehensive review of the literature. Acta Radiol. 2020; 61(12):1695-1700. DOI: 10.1177/0284185120910427. View

2.
Bauer E, Scibetta E, Cecchetti D, Piccirillo S, Antonaroli S, Sennato S . Treatments of a phthalocyanine-based green ink for tattoo removal purposes: generation of toxic fragments and potentially harmful morphologies. Arch Toxicol. 2020; 94(7):2359-2375. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-020-02790-7. View

3.
Boulanger G, Andujar P, Pairon J, Billon-Galland M, Dion C, Dumortier P . Quantification of short and long asbestos fibers to assess asbestos exposure: a review of fiber size toxicity. Environ Health. 2014; 13:59. PMC: 4112850. DOI: 10.1186/1476-069X-13-59. View

4.
Darvin M, Schleusener J, Parenz F, Seidel O, Krafft C, Popp J . Confocal Raman microscopy combined with optical clearing for identification of inks in multicolored tattooed skin in vivo. Analyst. 2018; 143(20):4990-4999. DOI: 10.1039/c8an01213j. View

5.
Hauri U, Hohl C . Photostability and breakdown products of pigments currently used in tattoo inks. Curr Probl Dermatol. 2015; 48:164-9. DOI: 10.1159/000369225. View