4.6 Review

Optimal sample formulations for DNP SENS: The importance of radical-surface interactions

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.cocis.2017.11.002

Keywords

Dynamic nuclear polarization; Solid-state NMR; Surface-enhanced NMR; Mesoporous materials; Carbonaceous materials

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences
  2. National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center program [EEC-0813570]
  3. Spedding Fellowship - Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program at the Ames Laboratory
  4. DOE, Iowa State University [DE-AC02-07CH11358]
  5. NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada)
  6. Government of Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The efficacy of dynamic nuclear polarization (DNP) surface-enhanced NMR spectroscopy (SENS) is reviewed for alumina, silica, and ordered mesoporous carbon (OMC) materials, with vastly different surface areas, as a function of the biradical concentration. Importantly, our studies show that the use of a one-size-fits-all biradical concentration should be avoided when performing DNP SENS experiments and instead an optimal concentration should be selected as appropriate for the type of material studied as well as its surface area. In general, materials with greater surface areas require higher radical concentrations for best possible DNP performance. This result is explained with the use of a thermodynamic model wherein radical-surface interactions are expected to lead to an increase in the local concentration of the polarizing agent at the surface. We also show, using plane-wave density functional theory calculations, that weak radical-surface interactions are the cause of the poor performance of DNP SENS for carbonaceous materials. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available