Question about arguments using Du Bois complex   Let $D$ be a reduced projective scheme over $\mathbb{C}$ such that $H^1(D,\mathcal{O}_D) = 0$ and $D$ is Gorenstein. 
There is a map 
\begin{equation}
r:=  \frac{d \log}{2 \pi i }: H^1(D, \mathcal{O}_D^{\ast}) \otimes \mathbb{C} \rightarrow H^1(D,\Omega_D^1)
\end{equation}
locally defined by $f \mapsto \frac{df}{f}$. 
Question Is this homomorphism injective?
If $D$ is smooth or a V-manifold, it is known that this is injective. 
If $D$ is general, I considered the following argument. If there is a mistake, please let me know about it. ;
Let $(\underline{\Omega}_D^{\bullet},F)$ be the Du bois complex on $D$. 
Then there is a homomorphism $H^1(D, \Omega_D^1) \rightarrow \mathbb{H}^1(D, \underline{\Omega}^1_D) $ where
$\underline{\Omega}^1_D := Gr_F^1 \underline{\Omega}^{\bullet}_D[1]$. 
Consider homomorphisms $ t : H^1(D, \mathcal{O}_D^{\ast}) \rightarrow H^2(D, \mathbb{C})$ which is induced by the exponential exact sequence 
$0 \rightarrow \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_D \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_D^{\ast} \rightarrow 0$
 and the homomorphism which is composition of the form 
 $H^1(D, \mathcal{O}_D^{\ast}) \stackrel{r}{\rightarrow}
 H^1(D, \Omega^1_D) \stackrel{s}{\rightarrow}
 \mathbb{H}^1(D, \underline{\Omega}^1_D) 
\stackrel{u}{\rightarrow}  H^2(D, \mathbb{C})$.
I don't know how to define $u$ in a natural way. 
Take a hyperresolution $f_{\bullet}: D_{\bullet} \rightarrow D $. 
I think that $\underline{\Omega}_D^1$ 
can be expressed by using the terms come from $\Omega^1_{D_{\bullet}}$ on each $D_{\bullet}$.
and there is a complex homomorphism $\underline{\Omega}^1_D \rightarrow \underline{\Omega}_D^{\bullet}$ induced by the expression above and define $u$ by this complex homomorphism.
If $t = u \circ s \circ r$, then $r$ is injective. 
Is there a mistake in this argument?
Moreover, I'm not familiar with arguments using Du Bois complex. I don't know the above arguments make sense. 
If there are useful literatures, please let me know about it. 
(add) I had a mistake in the definition of $\underline{\Omega}_D^1$. I forgot a shift by 1.
I'm readin p.174 of the book "Mixed Hodge Structures" by Peters and Steenbrink. 
 I thought that I can define 
$\underline{\Omega}_D^1 \rightarrow \underline{\Omega}_D^{\bullet}$ whose homomorphisms on $k$-th term are defined by using the direct summand inclusions
$  (f_k)_{*} \Omega_{D_k}^1 \rightarrow \oplus_{p+q = k+1} ( f_q )_{*} \Omega_{D_q}^p$.
 A: Let me convert my obscure comment into an (obscure?) answer, with some corrections.
The problem with your argument as it stands is that a map is not well defined:
$H^1(D,\underline{\Omega}_D^1)$ is only a subquotient of $H^2(D,\mathbb{C})$.
But the problem is minor. To fix things observe that $H^2(D)$ carries a mixed Hodge structure. 
Also the image $im(c_1)$ of the Chern class map (what you call $t$) lies in $F^1\cap \bar F^1$ because it lies in
$$ker[H^2(D,\mathbb{C})\to H^2(D,\mathcal{O}_D)]\subseteq F^1$$
and  is invariant under conjugation.
The space $F^1\cap \bar F^1$ maps injectively to 
$H^1(D,\underline{\Omega}_D^1)=Gr_F^1H^2(D,\mathbb{C})$. Now by your assumption $c_1$ is injective, so the map to $H^1(D,\underline{\Omega}_D^1)$ is also injective, and as (the normalized) $dlog$ factors through it, it is also injective.
References:
I'm using the standard facts from the papers of Deligne and Du Bois (which should be in
Peters-Steenbrink). For more information about $c_1$ in this setting,
see Barbieri Viale and Srinivas "The Neron Severi groups and the mixed Hodge structure 
on $H^2$" Crelles (1994); for higher Chern classes, see my paper with Kang "Kaehler-de Rham cohomology and Chern classes" Commun. Alg. 2011.
