Posted on 01/27/2006 1:21:11 AM PST by neverdem
Following the lead of astronomers who build their telescopes on remote mountaintops, German researchers have taken to the woods to generate ultrahigh-precision chemical measurements. By fleeing the magnetic interference common to civilization, a team at Forschungszentrum Jülich and Aachen University has devised a low-tech version of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy that can outperform multimillion-dollar lab instruments. The tabletop-sized device could hold the key to a new low-cost version of NMR spectroscopy. NMR works because some atomic nuclei behave like tiny bar magnets. In typical NMR experiments, researchers place a chemical sample at the center of a giant high-field superconducting magnet that causes the nuclear spins to wobble--or "precess"--around the magnetic field at a rate that is unique for each atomic species. Next, they hit their sample with radio pulses that nudge the nuclear spins away from their normal orbit; the timing of their realignment betrays their identity and chemical neighbors. The larger the external magnetic field, the easier it is to see the signal, which makes it possible to work out the structure of larger and more complex molecules.
The new technique makes use of another NMR signal, called the "J-coupling," which doesn't depend on the external field. When J-coupling occurs, the spins of atomic nuclei affect the behavior of the electrons that form the chemical bonds between the atoms. This influence shows up on an NMR spectrometer as patterns that reveal the structure of the component molecule.
Tracking J-coupling in a lab is a challenge, because even a nearby screwdriver can create imbalances in the magnetic field that wash out its signature. Ultrasensitive superconducting detectors called SQUIDs can overcome the problem, but they are costly and need expensive cooling equipment.
So the German team--Stephan Appelt, Holger Kühn, and F. Wolfgang Häsing at the Forschungszentrum Jülich, and Bernhard Blümich at Aachen University--opted to do away with extra equipment by working in a forest 30 kilometers from Jülich. By escaping the magnetic interference of civilization and placing magnetic shielding around their electronic gear, the scientists obtained J-coupling information at least 10 times as precise as with superconducting magnets 100,000 times more powerful, they report online 22 January in Nature Physics.
"It's a very beautiful piece of work," says Alexander Pines, a chemist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a pioneer in low-field NMR. He predicts that because the technology is cheap and mobile, it could lead to easier ways to monitor chemicals during manufacturing and track chemical spills.
On a related note--the first CT scanner was financed by EMI--the record company that had gobs of money from royalties Because they 'owned' the Beatles.
wow. Blümich on Freep.... is this still kansas ?
No, actually it's not. "Magnetic Resonance Imaging" is a subset of "nuclear magnetic resonance". NMR used for chemical analysis purposes doesn't do any "imaging", and is properly called "NMR".
Thank you for the correction, but IIRC, the name "Magnetic Resonance Imaging" is at least partly due a fear that this imaging technique involved nuclear radiation. Magnetic resonance imaging was developed from knowledge gained in the study of nuclear magnetic resonance. The original name for the medical technology is nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMRI), but the word nuclear is almost universally dropped. This is done to avoid the negative connotations of the word nuclear, and to prevent patients from associating the examination with radiation exposure. Scientists still use NMR when discussing non-medical devices operating on the same principles.
NMR used for chemical analysis purposes doesn't do any "imaging", and is properly called "NMR".
Unless someone is a chemist who was completely blind from birth, I can't imagine how a chemist can analyze the various possibilities in a molecule's structure from any chemical formula without using some sort of image.
Absolutely correct.
"Unless someone is a chemist who was completely blind from birth, I can't imagine how a chemist can analyze the various possibilities in a molecule's structure from any chemical formula without using some sort of image."
Well, yes---but it is the CHEMIST who does the necessary "imaging", and not the INSTRUMENT.
True enough after he eyeballs the images of nuclear magnetic spectra.
FIG. 4. 1D 1H NMR spectra of A12-b (A) and B12-b (B). Anomeric and other structural reporter proton resonances are indicated by roman numerals corresponding to the position of the residue in the sequence as shown in the formulae.
That image was from Inhibition of Adhesion of Plasmodium falciparum-Infected Erythrocytes by Structurally Defined Hyaluronic Acid Dodecasaccharides
And I would say that "spectra" are not images. MRI produces an "image" in the same sense as a camera does--a geometric representation of a physical object---a spectrometer doesn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.