Journal of Chemical Physics
Feedback | Help | Exit
The Journal of Chemical Physics
   
 
 
 
Previous Article
Activated hopping and dynamical fluctuation effects in hard sphere suspensions and fluids
Single particle Brownian dynamics simulation methods are employed to establish the full trajectory level predictions of our nonlinear stochastic Langevin equation theory of activated hopping dynamics ...
Next Article
Vibrational properties of inclusion complexes: The case of indomethacin-cyclodextrin
Vibrational properties of inclusion complexes with cyclodextrins are studied by means of Raman spectroscopy and numerical simulation. In particular, Raman spectra of the nonsteroidal, anti-inflammator...

Description of depolarization effects in double-quantum solid state nuclear magnetic resonance experiments using multipole-multimode Floquet theory

J. Chem. Phys. 125, 044510 (2006); doi:10.1063/1.2216711

Published 26 July 2006

You are not logged in to this journal. Log in

Ramesh Ramachandran and Robert G. Griffin
Francis Bitter Magnet Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 and Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
Using an analytical model based on multipole-multimode Floquet theory (MMFT), we describe the polarization loss (or depolarization) observed in double-quantum (DQ) dipolar recoupling magic angle spinning (MAS) experiments. Specifically, the factors responsible for depolarization are analyzed in terms of higher order corrections to the spin Hamiltonian in addition to the usual phenomenological decay rate constant. From the MMFT model and the effective Hamiltonians, we elucidate the rationale behind the inclusion of a phenomenological damping term in DQ recoupling experiments. As a test of this theoretical approach, the recoupling efficiency of one class of 13C–13C and 13C–15N resonance width dipolar recoupling experiments are investigated at different magnetic field strengths and compared with the more exact numerical simulations. In contrast to existing analytical treatments, the role of higher order corrections is clearly explained in the context of the MMFT approach leading to a better understanding of the underlying spin physics. Furthermore, the analytical model presented herein provides a general framework for describing coherent and incoherent effects in homonuclear and heteronuclear DQ MAS recoupling experiments. ©2006 American Institute of Physics
History: Received 19 April 2006; accepted 25 May 2006; published 26 July 2006
Permalink: http://link.aip.org/link/?JCPSA6/125/044510/1
BUY THIS ARTICLE   (US$28)
Download HTML Download Sectioned HTML Download PDF (609 kB) View Cart

KEYWORDS and PACS

Keywords
PACS
  • 76.60.-k
    Nuclear magnetic resonance and relaxation (condensed matter)
  • 76.70.Fz
    Double nuclear magnetic resonance (DNMR) (condensed matter) including dynamical nuclear polarization
  • YEAR: 2006

RELATED DATABASES


To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN:
0021-9606 (print)   1089-7690 (online)
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef AIP

REFERENCES (49)
View in Separate Window/Tab
For access to fully linked references, you need to log in. For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.
  1. E. R. Andrew, A. Bradbury, and R. G. Eades, Nature (London) 182, 1659 (1958).
  2. I. J. Lowe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2, 285 (1959).
  3. S. R. Hartmann and E. L. Hahn, Phys. Rev. 128, 2042 (1962).
  4. A. Pines, M. G. Gibby, and J. S. Waugh, J. Chem. Phys. 59, 569 (1973).
  5. U. Haeberlen, High-Resolution NMR in Solids: Selective Averaging (Academic, New York, 1976).
  6. R. Tycko, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 4, 500 (2000).
  7. C. P. Jaroniec, C. E. MacPhee, N. S. Astrof, C. M. Dobson, and R. G. Griffin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 16748 (2002).
  8. P. R. Costa, D. A. Kocisko, B. Q. Sun, P. T. Lansbury, and R. G. Griffin, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119, 10487 (1997).
  9. F. Creuzet, A. McDermott, R. Gebhard, K. van der Hoef, M. B. Spijker-Assink, J. Herzfeld, J. Lugtenburg, M. H. Levitt, and R. G. Griffin, Science 251, 783 (1991).
  10. A. McDermott, FASEB J. 16, A741 (2002).
  11. F. Castellani, B. van Rossum, A. Diehl, M. Schubert, K. Rehbein, and H. Oschkinat, Nature (London) 420, 98 (2002).
  12. A. Bockmann, A. Lange, A. Galinier, S. Luca, N. Giraud, M. Juy, H. Heise, R. Montserret, F. Penin, and M. Baldus, J. Biomol. NMR 27, 323 (2003).
  13. W. T. Franks, D. H. Zhou, B. J. Wylie, B. G. Money, D. T. Graesser, H. L. Frericks, G. Sahota, and C. M. Rienstra, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127, 12291 (2005).
  14. A. E. Bennett, R. G. Griffin, and S. Vega, in Solid State NMR IV: Methods and Applications of Solid-State NMR, edited by B. Blumich (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994), Vol. 33, p. 1.
  15. S. Dusold and A. Sebald, Annu. Rep. NMR Spectrosc. 41, 185 (2000).
  16. M. H. Levitt, in Encyclopedia of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, edited by D. M. Grant and R. K. Harris (Wiley, New York, 2002), Vol. 9, p. 165.
  17. E. R. Andrew, S. Clough, L. F. Farnell, T. A. Gledhill, and I. Roberts, Phys. Lett. 21, 505 (1966).
  18. D. P. Raleigh, G. S. Harbison, J. E. Neiss, J. E. Roberts, and R. G. Griffin, Chem. Phys. Lett. 138, 285 (1987).
  19. T. G. Oas, R. G. Griffin, and M. H. Levitt, J. Chem. Phys. 89, 692 (1988).
  20. N. C. Nielsen, H. Bildsøe, H. J. Jakobsen, and M. H. Levitt, J. Chem. Phys. 101, 1805 (1994).
  21. Y. K. Lee, N. D. Kurur, M. Helmle, O. G. Johannessen, N. C. Nielsen, and M. H. Levitt, Chem. Phys. Lett. 242, 304 (1995).
  22. T. Gullion and J. Schaefer, J. Magn. Reson. (1969-1992) 81, 196 (1989).
  23. B. Q. Sun, P. R. Costa, D. Kocisko, P. T. Lansbury, and R. G. Griffin, J. Chem. Phys. 102, 702 (1995).
  24. U. Haeberlen and J. S. Waugh, Phys. Rev. 175, 453 (1968).
  25. M. H. Levitt, D. P. Raleigh, F. Creuzet, and R. G. Griffin, J. Chem. Phys. 92, 6347 (1990).
  26. R. Ramachandran and R. G. Griffin, J. Chem. Phys. 122, 164502 (2005).
  27. J. H. van Vleck, Phys. Rev. 33, 467 (1929).
  28. W. Magnus, Pure Appl. Math. 7, 649 (1954).
  29. R. Ramesh and M. S. Krishnan, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 5967 (2001).
  30. R. Ramachandran, V. S. Bajaj, and R. G. Griffin, J. Chem. Phys. 122, 164503 (2005).
  31. P. R. Costa, B. Sun, and R. G. Griffin, J. Magn. Reson. 164, 92 (2003).
  32. R. Ramachandran, V. Ladizhansky, V. S. Bajaj, and R. G. Griffin, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 125, 15623 (2003).
  33. V. Ladizhansky and R. G. Griffin, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126, 948 (2004).
  34. R. Ramachandran, J. R. Lewandowski, P. C. A. v. Wel, and R. G. Griffin, J. Chem. Phys. 124, 214107 (2006).
  35. K. Takegoshi, K. Nomura, and T. Terao, J. Magn. Reson. 127, 206 (1997).
  36. A. R. Edmonds, Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1974).
  37. B. C. Sanctuary, J. Chem. Phys. 64, 4352 (1976).
  38. B. C. Sanctuary and T. K. Halstead, Adv. Magn. Opt. Reson. 15, 79 (1990).
  39. B. L. Silver, Irreducible Tensor Methods: An Introduction for Chemists (Academic, New York, 1976).
  40. A. E. Bennett, D. P. Weliky, and R. Tycko, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 120, 4897 (1998).
  41. G. Goobes, G. J. Boender, and S. Vega, J. Magn. Reson. 146, 204 (2000).
  42. M. G. Munowitz, W. P. Aue, and R. G. Griffin, J. Chem. Phys. 77, 1686 (1982).
  43. P. R. Costa, B. Sun, and R. G. Griffin, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119, 10821 (1997).
  44. J. H. Shirley, Phys. Rev. 138, B979 (1965).
  45. C. N. Banwell and H. Primas, Mol. Phys. 6, 225 (1963).
  46. G. J. Boender, S. Vega, and H. J. M. d. Groot, Mol. Phys. 95, 921 (1998).
  47. M. R. Aliev and V. T. Aleksanyan, Opt. Spektrosk. 24, 520 (1968).
  48. M. R. Aliev and V. T. Aleksanyan, Opt. Spektrosk. 24, 695 (1968).
  49. M. Veshtort and R. G. Griffin, J. Magn. Reson. 178, 248 (2006).

CITING ARTICLES
For access to citing articles, you need to log in.
For access to citing articles, you need to Log in.


Copyright © American Institute of Physics