4.6 Article

Nanoscale Catalysts for NMR Signal Enhancement by Reversible Exchange

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 119, 期 13, 页码 7525-7533

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b02036

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [CHE-1416268]
  2. NIH [1R21EB018014-01A1, 2R15EB007074-02]
  3. DoD CDMRP Breast Cancer Program Era of Hope Award [W81XWH-12-1-0159/BC112431]
  4. SIUC OSPA
  5. Graduate School of SIUC
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  7. Division Of Chemistry [1416432, 1416268] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two types of nanoscale catalysts were created to explore NMR signal enhancement via reversible exchange (SABRE) at the interface between heterogeneous and homogeneous conditions. Nanoparticle and polymer comb variants were synthesized by covalently tethering Ir-based organometallic catalysts to support materials composed of TiO2/PMAA (poly(methacrylic acid)) and PVP (polyvinylpyridine), respectively, and characterized by AAS, NMR, and DLS. Following parahydrogen (pH(2)) gas delivery to mixtures containing one type of nano-SABRE catalyst particle, a target substrate, and ethanol, up to similar to(-)40-fold and similar to(-)7-fold H-1 NMR signal enhancements were observed for pyridine substrates using the nanoparticle and polymer comb catalysts, respectively, following transfer to high field (9.4 T). These enhancements appear to result from intact particles and not from any catalyst molecules leaching from their supports; unlike the case with homogeneous SABRE catalysts, high-field (in situ) SABRE effects were generally not observed with the nanoscale catalysts. The potential for separation and reuse of such catalyst particles is also demonstrated. Taken together, these results support the potential utility of rational design at molecular, mesoscopic, and macroscopic/engineering levels for improving SABRE and HET-SABRE (heterogeneous-SABRE) for applications varying from fundamental studies of catalysis to biomedical imaging

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据