“…It is documented that the SED model correctly predicts the linear dependence of the rotational reorientation times on the solvent viscosity for polar and cationic dyes dissolved in polar and non polar solvents (Chuang and Eisenthal, 1971;Fleming et al, 1976;Porter et al, 1977;Moog et al, 1982;Spears and Cramer, 1978;Millar et al, 1979;von Jena and Lessing, 1979a, b;Rice and KenneyWallace, 1980;Waldeck and Fleming, 1981;Dutt et al, 1990;Alavi et al, 1991a, b, c;Krishnamurthy et al, 1993;Dutt et al, 1998) that have been interpreted using dielectric fiction theories. The dielectric friction can be modeled using continuum theories of NeeZwanzig (NZ) (Nee and Zwanzig, 1970), which treats the solute as a point dipole rotating in a spherical cavity, Alavi-Waldeck (AW) (Alavi and Waldeck, 1991b;1993) model which is an extension of the NZ theory where the solute is treated as a distribution of charges instead of point dipole and the semiempirical approach of van der Zwan and Hynes (vdZH) (van der Zwan and Hynes, 1985) in which fluorescence Stokes shift of the solute in a given solvent is related to dielectric friction. Conversely, the results of neutral and nonpolar solutes deviate significantly from the hydrodynamic predictions at higher viscosities (Waldeck et al, 1982;Canonica et al, 1985;Phillips et al, 1985;Courtney et al, 1986;Ben Amotz and Drake, 1988;Roy and Doraiswamy, 1993;Williams et al, 1994;Jiang and Blanchard, 1994;Anderton and Kauffman, 1994;Brocklehurst and Young, 1995;Benzler and Luther, 1997;Dutt et al, 1999;Ito et al, 2000;Inamdar et al, 2006).…”