Kirill V Kovtunov1, Milton L Truong2, Danila A Barskiy1, Oleg G Salnikov1, Valery I Bukhtiyarov3, Aaron M Coffey4, Kevin W Waddell4, Igor V Koptyug1, Eduard Y Chekmenev5. 1. International Tomography Center , 3A Institutskaya St., Novosibirsk 630090, Russia ; Novosibirsk State University , 2 Pirogova St., Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia. 2. Institute of Imaging Science, Department of Radiology, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Department of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2310, United States. 3. Boreskov Institute of Catalysis , SB RAS, 5 Acad. Lavrentiev Pr., Novosibirsk 630090, Russia. 4. Institute of Imaging Science, Department of Radiology, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Department of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2310, United States ; Institute of Imaging Science, Department of Radiology, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Department of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2310, United States. 5. Institute of Imaging Science, Department of Radiology, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Department of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2310, United States ; Institute of Imaging Science, Department of Radiology, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Department of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2310, United States ; Institute of Imaging Science, Department of Radiology, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Department of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2310, United States ; Institute of Imaging Science, Department of Radiology, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Department of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2310, United States.
Abstract
Long-lived spin states of hyperpolarized propane-d6 gas were demonstrated following pairwise addition of parahydrogen gas to propene-d6 using heterogeneous parahydrogen-induced polarization (HET-PHIP). Hyperpolarized molecules were synthesized using Rh/TiO2 solid catalyst with 1.6 nm Rh nanoparticles. Hyperpolarized (PH ∼ 1%) propane-d6 was detected at high magnetic field (9.4 T) spectroscopically and by high-resolution 3D gradient-echo MRI (4.7 T) as the gas flowed through the radiofrequency coil with a spatial and temporal resolution of 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5 mm3 and 17.7 s, respectively. Stopped-flow hyperpolarized propane-d6 gas was also detected at 0.0475 T with an observed nuclear spin polarization of PH ∼ 0.1% and a relatively long lifetime with T1,eff = 6.0 ± 0.3 s. Importantly, it was shown that the hyperpolarized protons of the deuterated product obtained via pairwise parahydrogen addition could be detected directly at low magnetic field. Importantly, the relatively long low-field T1,eff of HP propane-d6 gas is not susceptible to paramagnetic impurities as tested by exposure to ∼0.2 atm oxygen. This long lifetime and nontoxic nature of propane gas could be useful for bioimaging applications including potentially pulmonary low-field MRI. The feasibility of high-resolution low-field 2D gradient-echo MRI was demonstrated with 0.88 × 0.88 mm2 spatial and ∼0.7 s temporal resolution, respectively, at 0.0475 T.
Long-lived spin states of hyperpolarized propane-d6 gas were demonstrated following pairwise addition of parahydrogen gas to propene-d6 using heterogeneous parahydrogen-induced polarization (HET-PHIP). Hyperpolarized molecules were synthesized using Rh/TiO2 solid catalyst with 1.6 nm Rh nanoparticles. Hyperpolarized (PH ∼ 1%) propane-d6 was detected at high magnetic field (9.4 T) spectroscopically and by high-resolution 3D gradient-echo MRI (4.7 T) as the gas flowed through the radiofrequency coil with a spatial and temporal resolution of 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5 mm3 and 17.7 s, respectively. Stopped-flow hyperpolarized propane-d6 gas was also detected at 0.0475 T with an observed nuclear spin polarization of PH ∼ 0.1% and a relatively long lifetime with T1,eff = 6.0 ± 0.3 s. Importantly, it was shown that the hyperpolarized protons of the deuterated product obtained via pairwise parahydrogen addition could be detected directly at low magnetic field. Importantly, the relatively long low-field T1,eff of HP propane-d6 gas is not susceptible to paramagnetic impurities as tested by exposure to ∼0.2 atm oxygen. This long lifetime and nontoxic nature of propane gas could be useful for bioimaging applications including potentially pulmonary low-field MRI. The feasibility of high-resolution low-field 2D gradient-echo MRI was demonstrated with 0.88 × 0.88 mm2 spatial and ∼0.7 s temporal resolution, respectively, at 0.0475 T.
While gas imaging is
useful in studies of catalysis,[1] reactors,[2] porous
media,[3,4] lungs,[5] etc.,[6] it is challenging due to the low molar concentrations
of gases at normal pressure. Biomedical applications of gas imaging
are of particular importance. For example, there is currently no widespread
clinical imaging modality for functional lung imaging because computed
tomography (CT), conventional MRI, and X-ray can only provide structural
images of dense tissues[7]—e.g., tumors
or pneumonia—but provide very little or no information about
lung ventilation, perfusion, alveoli size, etc. Deadly diseases such
as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with over 300 million
people affected worldwide and ∼3 million annual deaths do not
have any imaging marker as of today.[8,9] This state
of affairs contrasts with cancer imaging, which includes MRI, CT,
ultrasound, mammography, positron emission tomography (PET), and others,
which enable early detection via population screening and treatment
response monitoring. High-sensitivity imaging techniques with low
penetration depth such as fluorescence and other optical imaging approaches
cannot be directly applied to lung imaging. Conversely, PET and MRI
with molecular contrast agents have a relatively high penetration
depth of tens of centimeters. Nuclear medicine approaches require
a radioactive exogenous contrast agent such as 133Xe gas
or technetium-99m DTPA,[7] which enables
lung imaging through visualization of inhaled gas. 133Xe
additionally enables brain imaging due to its ability to penetrate
the blood-brain barrier. The disadvantages include the requirements
for radioactive isotope handling and production and specialized imaging
hardware, which result in a relatively high cost.Conventional
MRI unfortunately has a relatively low sensitivity
for proton imaging of gases,[7] but two groups
of inhalable contrast agents for heteronuclear NMR and MRI have been
demonstrated to date. The first group is comprised of fluorinated
gases. Perfluorinated carbon (PFC) compounds are used as inhalable
contrast agents[10,11] which, once inhaled, can be imaged
via the detection of the relatively NMR-sensitive 19F stable
isotope nucleus. Because there is virtually no 19F NMR
background signal in vivo, this method offers a very
good contrast with the surrounding tissue. The main challenges of
this method are (i) the relatively low spatial and especially temporal
(minutes) resolution, caused by a low NMR signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
for the diluted PFC gases compared to tissue proton density, and (ii)
the requirement for specialized hardware and MRI pulse sequences.
The next group of methods relies on NMR hyperpolarization, which increases
nuclear spin polarization by 4–6 orders of magnitude and more.[12−14] The spin exchange optical pumping (SEOP)[5] process hyperpolarizes noble gases including 3He, 129Xe, 131Xe, and 83Kr.[15] When inhaled, these hyperpolarized (HP) gases can be imaged
by MRI on a single breath hold providing high-resolution 3D maps of
lung perfusion, ventilation, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC),
and other lung-function-related metrics.[6,7,16−18] These hyperpolarization methods
provide a great contrast between the lungs and other tissues because
of the lack of background signal but require (i) highly specialized
hyperpolarization equipment to create the hyperpolarized state and
(ii) a multinuclear MRI scanner with a second RF detection channel
in addition to the conventional proton RF channel. The above requirements
limited these promising MRI imaging modalities for both PFC and HP
noble gas contrast media to a few premier sites around the world.An alternative to the fluorinated and the HP noble gas approaches
is the use of proton HP contrast gas agents that can be detected using
conventional proton MRI hardware and imaging sequences, which are
already widely used in healthcare in developed and developing countries.
While several hyperpolarization techniques have been developed to
date, heterogeneous parahydrogen-induced polarization (HET-PHIP) is
uniquely suited for the production of HP hydrocarbon gases at a solid–gas
interface[19,20] because pure catalyst-free HP gases can
be prepared in seconds using relatively simple low-cost hyperpolarization
equipment.[1,21] Up to 1% HP propane gas was recently demonstrated,
enabling 3D MRI with high spatial and temporal resolution under conditions
of continuously flowing hyperpolarized gas.[22] While propane is a nontoxic asphyxiating gas, the biomedical use
of HP propane as an MRI contrast agent applied via inhalation is hardly
possible due to its short T1 of ∼1
s.[23]Most liquid-state PHIP agents
significantly benefit from the increase
in the PHIP yield and lifetime achieved upon deuteration of their
molecular precursors.[13,24] Here, we investigate the utility
of the deuterated propene precursor for the PHIP-based production
of hyperpolarized propane-d6 and its use
in NMR at high and low magnetic fields. While deuteration is typically
associated with significantly increased cost of chemical compounds
(i.e., the use of propene-d6 is inherently
more expensive than the use of propene[22,25]), it should
be pointed out that deuterated propene can be obtained via the process
of deuterium exchange with D2 or D2O,[26,27] which will likely result in a relatively low cost of mass-produced
propene-d6 similar to that of D2O.It should also be noted that low-field MRI detection demonstrated
here offers a potential advantage of improved sensitivity because
low-field MRI can be more sensitive than high-field MRI for detection
of hyperpolarized contrast media.[11,28] Moreover,
irrespective of hyperpolarization, low-field MRI in general offers
other advantages including (i) significantly reduced static magnetic
susceptibility effects resulting in the reduced subject-induced B0 inhomogeneities and (ii) a significantly reduced
specific adsorption rate (SAR).[29] The latter
advantages make low-field MRI a more robust, faster, and safer procedure
in comparison to conventional high-field MRI.Deuteration results
in only a small increase in T1 values
of the HP product as demonstrated here by high-field
NMR and MRI and thus provides little benefit in prolonging the hyperpolarization
lifetime. However, the use of low magnetic fields allows the preparation
of hyperpolarized long-lived spin states of the nascent pair of hydrogens
of parahydrogen (p-H2) after its pairwise
addition to propene-d6, and the significantly
increased hyperpolarization lifetime is potentially suitable for biomedical
imaging applications.Propane is a nontoxic asphyxiant, and
it has been shown to be nontoxic
and safe in a long-term (90-day long) occupational exposure study
at a concentration up to 10 000 ppm, which is below its lower
explosive level (LEL) of 2.1%.[30] While
additional toxicity studies may be required to warrant the safety
of bolus inhalation of propane gas at significantly greater concentrations,
the earlier work on long-term systemic exposure clearly advocates
for propane being safe and nontoxic.[30] Moreover,
the potential clinical translation will likely follow in the footsteps
of hyperpolarized 129Xe, which is a well-known anesthetic,
and is now administered as a bolus inhalation contrast agent under
high concentration of >50%. While propane is an explosive gas,
it
has a very low upper explosive level of ∼9.5%. Therefore, it
can be potentially safely administered to humans for lung imaging
at gas concentrations significantly exceeding its upper explosive
limit (UEL) > 9.5%.
Experimental Section
Preparation of Gases for
Hydrogenation Reactions
Ultrapure
(>99.999%) hydrogen gas was used for the preparation of >90% p-H2 using a previously described p-H2 generator.[31] Propene-d6 (99% atom D, Sigma-Aldrich 455687) and propene
(Sigma-Aldrich 295663-300G) gases were used as supplied by the manufacturer
without further purification. Gases were mixed immediately before
their use in a custom mixing chamber, which represented a previously
described[32,33] high-pressure ∼60 mL polysulfone
reactor filled with plastic balls to yield the effective chamber volume
of ∼30–60 mL. Propene-d6 gas was filled in the chamber first, and the chamber was then filled
with p-H2 gas with ∼9.5 bar total
pressure and a 1:2 ratio of propene-d6:p-H2 gases. Note that when propene gas
is completely hydrogenated the resulting gas mixture consists of propane-d6:p-H2 in ∼1:1
ratio. Rh/TiO2 catalyst (1.6 nm particle size) was described
earlier.[22] Approximately 50 mg of this
catalyst was packed inside an 1/8 in. OD copper tubing representing
a variable-temperature (VT) reaction chamber.
9.4 T High-Resolution NMR
Spectroscopy
High-resolution
high-field NMR spectroscopy was conducted on a 9.4 T Bruker Avance
NMR spectrometer. The experimental setups for ALTADENA[34] and PASADENA[35] experiments
are presented in the corresponding figures. For ALTADENA experiments,
the hydrogenation reaction was performed in a temperature-controlled
reaction chamber at Earth magnetic field, and the resulting gas was
transferred for detection to the 9.4 T NMR spectrometer via 1/16 in.
OD (1/32 in. ID) Teflon tubing at a flow rate of 100 mL/min at 1 atm
total gas pressure. HP gas was delivered to the bottom of a standard
5 mm NMR tube via 1/16 in. OD Teflon flexible tubing. The gas exited
the NMR tube through an additional exhaust line (via 1/16 in. OD Teflon
tubing) at the top of the NMR tube. For PASADENA experiments, a small
quantity (a few milligrams) of Rh/TiO2 catalyst was placed
at the bottom of a standard 5 mm NMR tube, and the propene-d6:p-H2 mixture was
delivered to the catalyst via 1/16 in. OD Teflon tubing. All experiments
with hydrogenation at Earth magnetic field were conducted at a reaction
chamber temperature of ∼100 °C. While the gas stream leaves
the reactor being very hot, the gas cools down rather rapidly because
gases generally have relatively low thermal capacity and because the
gas passes through a significant section (>1 m long) of 1/16 in.
ID
tubing. As a result, when the material is transferred to the 9.4 T
magnet, it is already equilibrated to room temperature. This was additionally
checked by blowing the stream of produced gases over the hand of the
experimenter, and the gas was found to be cooled. The apparent enhancement
factor ε(app,flow) was calculated by comparing the signal intensities
of hyperpolarized (flow) and thermally polarized (stopped flow) gas
samples using the method described earlier assuming that the HP gas
already equilibrated to room temperature after passing though a very
long section (>1 m) of tubing.[22] The
rapid
gas cool-down is a convenient and advantageous feature of this method
for potential biomedical translation.
4.7 T 3D MRI
High-field
3D MRI studies were conducted
using a 4.7 T Varian MRI scanner (Varian, Palo Alto, California) and
a custom-built 38 mm ID dual-channel MRI coil tuned to 1H frequency of 200.25 MHz. A 3D gradient echo MRI sequence (ge3D)
was used for MRI with the following parameters: spectral width (SW)
= 20 kHz, imaging matrix 64 × 64 × 64, field of view (FOV)
= 32 × 32 × 32 mm3, echo time (TE) = 2.2 ms,
repetition time (TR) = 4.3 ms, voxel size 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5
mm3 (125 nL), RF excitation pulse angle (α) = 15°
(500 μs, Gaussian shape) for HP propane-d6 and α = 2° (500 μs, Gaussian shape) for
the water phantom, total acquisition time of 17.7 s. No compressed
sensing or other image acceleration technique was used, and no data
manipulation was performed (i.e., zero-filling or smoothing). Percentage
polarization of HP propane-d6 gas was
calculated as described earlier for HP propane gas and was estimated
to be ∼1%.[22] It should be pointed
out that this polarization estimate was done using spectroscopic detection
of flowing HP propane with NMR FID of <100 ms.[22] This is important because the spectroscopic method provides
a more reliable number because imaging of flowing propane gas at 4.7
T may suffer from significant MRI artifacts related to the fast flow
and the encoding scheme.[22] A spiral-shaped
phantom was prepared using Tygon (3/32 in. ID × 3/16 in. OD,
McMaster Carr, Atlanta, GA, P/N 5552K22) tubing wrapped around a plastic
syringe to provide the dimensionality for imaging studies. A constant
HP gas flow rate (∼15 mL/min) was maintained during an entire
3D MRI scan.
0.0475 T NMR Spectroscopy and Nonslice-Selective
2D MRI
All low-field studies were carried out using a Kea2
NMR spectrometer
(Magritek, Wellington, New Zealand) with a custom-built frequency
optimized dual-channel RF 1H-X probe.[28] The flow rate was not controlled in low-field MR experiments
due to experimental limitations. Hyperpolarization via hydrogenation
of propane-d6 was conducted at Earth magnetic
field, and HP gas was transferred into an ∼2 mL phantom (estimated
transfer time <0.3 s) placed inside the 0.0475 T NMR magnet (Magritek,
Wellington, New Zealand). HP propane-d6 (or propane) gas was allowed to flow for ∼1 s time period,
after which the flow was terminated, and the phantom chamber was filled
with HP gas mixture (estimated 4.7 bar partial pressure of propane-d6 (or propane) at ∼100 °C—unlike
in high-field experiments, the exiting gas was passing through a very
short section (<20 cm) of heated tubing) containing ∼150
mM HP propane-d6 (or propane) corresponding
to ∼300 μmol quantity. NMR HP spectroscopic signals of
propane-d6 and propane were referenced
to the NMR signal from thermally polarized H2O (2.8 g,
∼160 mmol, 55 M concentration, containing 5 mM CuSO4). The enhancement factors ε were calculated by comparing the
signal intensities and quantities of HP gas and thermally polarized
reference sample of water as follows: ε = (SHP × χH2O)/(SH2O × χHP) ∼ 6000, where SHP and SH2O are
the integrals of the NMR signals of HP propane-d6 and water, respectively, and χH2O and χHP are molar quantities of water and HP propane-d6, respectively. Percentage of proton polarization in
HP propane-d6 was computed using thermal
equilibrium proton polarization at 0.0475 T of PH = 1.6 × 10–7 or 1.6 × 10–5% as follows: PHP = ε
× PTHERMAL yielding PHP ∼ 0.1% per each (two per molecule) hyperpolarized
nascent proton. All NMR spectra were recorded using a 45° excitation
rectangular shape RF pulse and one scan. A 2D MRI experiment was conducted
using nonslice-selective 2D GRE sequence as supplied by the manufacturer
(Magritek, Wellington, New Zealand) using the following pulse sequence
parameters: TE/TR = 7.0/20 ms, acquisition time = 6.4 ms, SW = 5.0
kHz, RF excitation pulse (rectangular shape), α = 7° (6.0
μs), FOV = 28 × 28 mm2 using 32 × 32 imaging
matrix with two dummy scans with the total imaging time of ∼0.7
s. Imaging of HP propane-d6 utilized a
single average and was repeated every 3 s, while imaging of water
utilized eight averages. All images from propane-d6 utilized one average (NA), while images of water were
recorded with NA = 8. All images were interpolated to 1024 ×
1024 pixels via zero-filling the data to enhance visual representation.
Low-Field NMR Spectra Simulation
1H NMR
spectra for propane, propane-d6, and [3-13C]propane were calculated based on the conventional spin-density
matrix formalism. For propane, the following parameters were used:
δ = 0.899 ppm (methyl, 6H), δ = 1.336 ppm (methylene,
2H), JHH = 7.4 Hz. For 13C-labeled
propane, δ(13C) = 16.2 ppm and 1JCH = 125 Hz were used, with the two H atoms
inherited from parahydrogen residing on the two unlabeled (12C) carbons in the propane molecule. For propane-d6, the vicinal couplings were 3JHH = 7.4 Hz, 3JHD = 1.12 Hz, and 3JDD = 0.17
Hz, while for the geminal H–D couplings the value 2JHD = 2 Hz was used.Evolution
of spin density matrix in the external magnetic field was evaluated
by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian matrix to find eigenstates and eigenenergies
of the spin system. The spin density matrix was then converted to
the eigenbasis, and its elements were propagated in time using the
respective differences in eigenenergies. Evolution under the action
of hard pulses was evaluated by constructing and applying the corresponding
rotation operators, with only 1H nuclei affected by the
pulses. Two types of calculations were performed: (1) assuming that
both reaction and NMR signal detection took place at the 0.0475 T
field and (2) for reaction performed at the Earth’s field followed
by adiabatic sample transfer to 0.0475 T for NMR signal detection.
The calculation results were found to be almost identical. The field
sweep was incorporated, when required, by using a series of short
free evolution intervals interleaved with small stepwise increments
in the magnetic field. The number of intervals (100–1000) was
increased until no further changes in the calculated spectra were
observed. The FID was calculated based on the free evolution of the
density matrix with periodic calculation of transverse magnetization
for 1H nuclei, followed by Fourier transform to generate
the spectrum. Relaxation effects were not included in the calculations.
Results and Discussion
The conventional ALTADENA[34] experiment
relies on the pairwise addition of p-H2 to an unsaturated precursor in a very low magnetic field under conditions
of γHB0(δ(HA) –
δ(HB))/2π ≪ JHA-HB, which is followed by a rapid yet adiabatic sample transfer to a
high-field NMR spectrometer and detection of the dissociated singlet
of nascent parahydrogen protons under conditions of γHB0(δ(HA) – δ(HB))/2π ≫ JHA-HB, where
γHB0(δ(HA) – δ(HB))/2π is the chemical shift difference (in units of
Hz) of the two nascent protons HA and HB (Figure 1b). The resulting ALTADENA spectrum (Figure 1d) of HP propane-d6 shows
the expected two NMR lines corresponding to HA and HB protons of propane-d6 gas with
the signal enhancement ε(app,flow) = 100 ± 5 (measured
by comparison with the thermal spectrum of stopped gas, Figure 1e; the signal enhancement is similar to that observed
for nondeuterated propane under similar experimental conditions).[22]
Figure 1
ALTADENA single-scan NMR spectroscopy of HP propane-d6 with detection at 9.4 T: (a) experimental
setup diagram,
(b) the diagram of pairwise addition of p-H2 (shown as HA – HB) to propene-d6 resulting in propane-d6, (c) T1 measurements for thermally
polarized propane-d6 by the inversion–recovery
method[36] at 9.4 T, (d) ALTADENA spectrum
of HP propane-d6 with ε(app,flow)
= 100 ± 5 with respect to the spectrum (e) of stopped thermally
polarized propane-d6 gas, where unequal
thermal resonances for CHD and CD2H protons are formed
due to fast H–D exchange reaction over the metal surface of
heterogeneous catalyst, and (f) 32-scan spectrum of thermally polarized
propene-d6 gas showing residual 1H proton signals in propene-d6 groups.
ALTADENA single-scan NMR spectroscopy of HP propane-d6 with detection at 9.4 T: (a) experimental
setup diagram,
(b) the diagram of pairwise addition of p-H2 (shown as HA – HB) to propene-d6 resulting in propane-d6, (c) T1 measurements for thermally
polarized propane-d6 by the inversion–recovery
method[36] at 9.4 T, (d) ALTADENA spectrum
of HP propane-d6 with ε(app,flow)
= 100 ± 5 with respect to the spectrum (e) of stopped thermally
polarized propane-d6 gas, where unequal
thermal resonances for CHD and CD2H protons are formed
due to fast H–D exchange reaction over the metal surface of
heterogeneous catalyst, and (f) 32-scan spectrum of thermally polarized
propene-d6 gas showing residual 1H proton signals in propene-d6 groups.While deuteration may increase T1,
this effect was found to be very minor at 9.4 T. For example, T1 (CHD2−) is 684 ± 27
ms vs T1 (CH3−) = 616
± 16 ms, and T1 (−CHD−)
is 625 ± 10 ms vs T1 (−CH2−) = 532 ± 6 ms, in propane-d6 and propane, respectively. These relatively low T1 values present an experimental challenge for
the detection of HP gas because of the relaxation losses during gas
transport from the reactor to the NMR detector (Figure 1a). Moreover, short T1 is a fundamental
barrier for potential biomedical translation of HP propane (and other
HP hydrocarbons) as an inhalable HP contrast agent for pulmonary imaging
in a manner similar to HP 129Xe[6,7] and
other HP noble gases.Despite the limitations associated with
a relatively short T1, HP propane gas
can be successfully used for
high-resolution hyperpolarized imaging. An example of high-resolution
3D MRI is provided in Figure 2a, where a spiral-shaped
phantom was filled with the flowing HP propane-d6 gas. The MR image with 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5 mm3 spatial and 17.7 s temporal resolution is demonstrated using polarization
levels of PH ∼ 1% for HP propane-d6 gas. A corresponding image of thermally polarized
water is provided in Figure 2b. The SNR of
3D images of HP propane-d6 gas and water
were similar, demonstrating that proton images of hyperpolarized gases
can be obtained with a quality similar to that of water. The clear
advantages of proton hyperpolarized gas (vs 129Xe[6,7,37] or other hyperpolarized noble
gases) such as propane-d6 shown here include
the use of widely available proton-detecting imaging hardware and
conventional and advanced[38] fast 3D proton
MRI sequences. For example, the images presented in Figure 2a were acquired using a conventional 3D GRE MRI
sequence as supplied by the MRI instrument manufacturer. It should
also be noted that the images presented in Figure 2a have an approximately 2-fold better spatial resolution (as
measured by the voxel size) compared to 0.625 × 0.625 ×
0.625 mm3 spatial resolution demonstrated earlier with
HP nondeuterated propane.[22]
Figure 2
High-resolution 3D gradient echo (GRE) MRI at
4.7 T. (a) 3D MRI
of flowing ∼20 mM HP propane gas with 0.5 × 0.5 ×
0.5 mm3 spatial and 17.7 s temporal resolution with 32
× 32 × 32 mm3 field of view. (b) The corresponding
image of still thermally polarized 55 M tap water and (c) photograph
of spiral phantom used for MRI imaging studies shown in (a) and (b).
Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) values are provided for representative
voxels marked with white asterisk (*).
Moreover,
the fully deuterated unsaturated substrate propene-d6 enables the studies of the hydrogenation reaction
mechanism via the in situ detection of HP products
through PASADENA[35] protocol, where heterogeneous
hydrogenation is carried out inside a 5 mm NMR tube with the in situ NMR signal detection[39,40] (Figure 3a). While the PASADENA spectrum of HP propane-d6 produced via pairwise addition of p-H2 primarily consists of two antiphase NMR
lines corresponding to two nascent protons HA and HB derived from the p-H2 molecule
(Figure 3b), there are additional enhanced
NMR signals, which correspond to HP propene. It should be noted that
propene-d6 (99% labeling with deuterium)
carries essentially no protons, while Figure 4b clearly illustrates the enhanced antiphase resonances 3, 4, 5,
and 6 of partially deuterated propenes with PASADENA hyperpolarized
protons. These observations suggest that these resonances correspond
to nascent protons derived from p-H2 via
(i) pairwise addition to propene-d6 followed
by subsequent dehydrogenation (loss of D2) (Figure 4a) or via an alternative pathway of (ii) propene-d6 dehydrogenation followed by pairwise addition
of p-H2 to propyne-d4. While both pathways are possible, the second pathway is
either nonexistent or has a minor contribution because it cannot produce
the HP resonance 4 clearly seen in Figure 4. Note that nonpairwise H2 addition is the major reaction
mechanism accounting for most (>95%[23])
of the produced propane, and most parahydrogen-derived spin order
is lost due to the dominance of the nonpairwise reaction mechanism
and relaxation, i.e., only up to 1% is retained on the propanespin
ensemble of nascent parahydrogen protons. Nevertheless, the nonpairwise
route (i.e., without preservation of p-H2 derived hyperpolarization) also involves the H/D exchange process
described in Figure 4a on the surface of Rh/TiO2 catalyst because the signal ratio of methyl and methylene
peaks is far from 1:1 (which would be expected if only one p-H2 molecule were incorporated in one propene-d6 molecule) as seen in the thermally polarized
spectrum (Figure 1e) of hydrogenated gas. This
indicates that on average more than two protons are being incorporated
in the final hydrogenated product, which strictly speaking should
not be referred to as propane-d6.
Figure 3
PASADENA NMR spectroscopy of HP propane-d6 with detection at 9.4 T: (a) experimental setup diagram,
(b) PASADENA spectrum (8 averages) of HP propane-d6, and (c) 32-scan spectrum of thermally polarized propane-d6 gas. The inset scheme shows pairwise addition
of p-H2 (shown as HA –
HB) to propene-d6 resulting
in propane-d6.
Figure 4
Reaction mechanism of pairwise addition of p-H2 to propene-d6 and dehydrogenation
leading to the observation of PASADENA signals in partially deuterated
propenes: (a) pathways of hydrogenation/dehydrogenation reactions
leading to incorporation of p-H2 (shown
as HA – HB) into partially deuterated
propenes and (b) scaled (×25) spectrum shown in Figure 3b.
Moreover, these mechanistic studies indicate that enhanced resonances
3, 4, 5, and 6 are derived through p-H2 addition and dehydrogenation processes rather than through other
mechanisms of polarization transfer from p-H2. In contrast, if normal (i.e., nondeuterated) propene was
used in the above PASADENA studies, it would be difficult to elucidate
the mechanism of formation of HP propene species. Therefore, the deuterated
precursor is an important and unique tool for mechanistic studies
of hydrogenation processes.High-resolution 3D gradient echo (GRE) MRI at
4.7 T. (a) 3D MRI
of flowing ∼20 mM HP propane gas with 0.5 × 0.5 ×
0.5 mm3 spatial and 17.7 s temporal resolution with 32
× 32 × 32 mm3 field of view. (b) The corresponding
image of still thermally polarized 55 M tapwater and (c) photograph
of spiral phantom used for MRI imaging studies shown in (a) and (b).
Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) values are provided for representative
voxels marked with white asterisk (*).PASADENA NMR spectroscopy of HP propane-d6 with detection at 9.4 T: (a) experimental setup diagram,
(b) PASADENA spectrum (8 averages) of HP propane-d6, and (c) 32-scan spectrum of thermally polarized propane-d6 gas. The inset scheme shows pairwise addition
of p-H2 (shown as HA –
HB) to propene-d6 resulting
in propane-d6.Reaction mechanism of pairwise addition of p-H2 to propene-d6 and dehydrogenation
leading to the observation of PASADENA signals in partially deuterated
propenes: (a) pathways of hydrogenation/dehydrogenation reactions
leading to incorporation of p-H2 (shown
as HA – HB) into partially deuterated
propenes and (b) scaled (×25) spectrum shown in Figure 3b.Furthermore, NMR and MRI detection can be performed at low
magnetic
fields.[41−43] In addition, the detection efficiency of HP NMR and
MRI (defined as SNR) in low magnetic fields can in fact significantly
exceed that of high-field HP detection.[28,32,33] Low-field NMR can offer the regime of a strongly
coupled spin system with γHB0(δ(HA) – δ(HB))/2π < JHA-HB, and therefore the singlet spin state of
the nascent protons derived from p-H2 may
remain partially associated. NMR detection of HP propane-d6 obtained using the setup shown in Figure 5a enabled NMR detection at 0.0475 T,[32,33] where γHB0(δ(HA) –
δ(HB))/2π of ∼1 Hz is significantly
smaller than JHA-HB of ∼7
Hz. The spectroscopic NMR detection of stopped HP propane-d6 gas (Figure 5b) revealed
a strongly enhanced signal with ε(app,stopped) ∼ 6000
corresponding to PH ∼ 0.1% (per
nascent proton) by referencing the NMR signal of thermally polarized
water. Experimentations with nondeuterated HP propane under identical
experimental conditions (Figure 5b) revealed
a significant collapse of the NMR signal due to a small chemical shift
difference between HA and HB.
Figure 5
Stopped-flow NMR spectroscopy
of hyperpolarized propane-d6 gas at 0.0475
T. (a) Experimental setup diagram
and (b) (left) single-scan NMR spectrum of HP propane-d6 after pairwise addition of p-H2 to propene-d6 in Earth magnetic
field. The inset shows the decay of HP signal measured with a small-angle
RF excitation pulse (α = 7°); (middle) the corresponding
spectrum of thermally polarized water, and (right) the corresponding
spectrum of HP propane. It should be noted that the effect of 7°
RF excitation pulse on magnetization is negligible (>99% of residual
polarization is retained after each RF pulse) conveniently allowing in situ direct monitoring of exponential signal decay, i.e., T1 measurement.[32,37,44]
Stopped-flow NMR spectroscopy
of hyperpolarized propane-d6 gas at 0.0475
T. (a) Experimental setup diagram
and (b) (left) single-scan NMR spectrum of HP propane-d6 after pairwise addition of p-H2 to propene-d6 in Earth magnetic
field. The inset shows the decay of HP signal measured with a small-angle
RF excitation pulse (α = 7°); (middle) the corresponding
spectrum of thermally polarized water, and (right) the corresponding
spectrum of HP propane. It should be noted that the effect of 7°
RF excitation pulse on magnetization is negligible (>99% of residual
polarization is retained after each RF pulse) conveniently allowing in situ direct monitoring of exponential signal decay, i.e., T1 measurement.[32,37,44]Theoretical simulations
of the experiments intended to verify the
observed significant difference in the NMR signals of deuterated and
nondeuterated propane were performed (Figure 6). The very large difference between signal enhancements for propane
and propane-d6 can be rationalized as
follows. At the magnetic field of 0.0475 T, the methyl and methylene
proton spins of propane are strongly coupled and essentially represent
a system of eight almost magnetically equivalent spins. In the reaction
of propene with p-H2, the numerous spin
states of propane are populated in such a way that the allowed NMR
transitions correspond to very small spin level population differences
and thus give very weak signals, whereas significant population differences
created by the reaction correspond to transitions which are normally
forbidden. In terms of a two-spin system, this would correspond to
small population differences within the manifold of the NMR-active
triplet spin state and a large population difference between the singlet
and triplet manifolds which gives no observable NMR signal. However,
because the two chemical shifts are unequal, mixing of the triplet
and singlet states makes the nominally forbidden transitions slightly
allowed, which, combined with the large population difference between
the singlet and triplet manifolds, leads to the observation of a moderate
intensity spectrum. We note that for an eight-spin system, this “singlet–triplet”
terminology is applicable only in qualitative terms, but it is still
quite illustrative. For propane-d6, the
presence of deuterium atoms removes the near-magnetic equivalence
of the two H atoms inherited by propane from p-H2, and the corresponding mixing of spin states ensures that
large population differences are now associated with fully allowed
transitions, leading to much larger signal intensity in the observed
NMR spectrum (Figure 6).
Figure 6
Calculated 1H NMR spectra of
HP propane and its isotopomers
after pairwise addition of p-H2 to corresponding
propenes in a chemical reaction performed at 0.0475 T magnetic field.
(a) The spectrum calculated for propane-d6. (b) The weighted sum of the spectra of propane and [3-13C]propane (it is assumed that the two hydrogen atoms inherited from p-H2 are in positions 1 and 2 in the propane
molecule). The contribution of [3-13C]propane was multiplied
by 0.011 to take into account 13C natural abundance. Note
the different vertical scales for the two spectra.
The polarization
decay time measurements for HP propane-d6 yielded a value of T1,eff = 6.0 ±
0.3 s (Figure 5b
inset), which is an order of magnitude greater than the high-field T1 value of ∼0.6 s. Furthermore, the addition
of 0.2 atm of O2 introduced to HP propane-d6 did not affect its T1,eff of ∼6 s. The increase in T1 (and
its insensitivity to paramagnetic O2 impurity) is highly
desirable because it renders the opportunity to use HP propane gas
for biomedical applications as a potential inhalable proton hyperpolarized
contrast agent.This effect of creation of longer-lived large
population differences
between the spin states of nascent p-H2 proton spins is likely to be universal for PHIP (and potentially
other HP methods), and we term it Nuclear Alignment of Spin Hyperpolarization
via Interactions in Long-lived Low-field Ensembles (NASHVILLE) to
make distinction with PASADENA and ALTADENA conditions. A number of
perdeuterated PHIP precursors similar to propene-d6 employed here are already available for efficient, i.e.,
resulting in near unity, hyperpolarization. These precursors can be
used for PHIP of HEP for MRI angiography,[45] TFPP for coronary plaque imaging,[46] succinate[47,48] for cancer imaging,[49] phospholactate,[13,50] and propargylcholine.[51] It can be speculated
that they are good candidates for NASHVILLE experiments to achieve
long-lived 1Hspin states in low magnetic field without
the requirement for the polarization transfer from nascent protons
to 13C or 15N heteronucleus.[52−55]Calculated 1H NMR spectra of
HP propane and its isotopomers
after pairwise addition of p-H2 to corresponding
propenes in a chemical reaction performed at 0.0475 T magnetic field.
(a) The spectrum calculated for propane-d6. (b) The weighted sum of the spectra of propane and [3-13C]propane (it is assumed that the two hydrogen atoms inherited from p-H2 are in positions 1 and 2 in the propane
molecule). The contribution of [3-13C]propane was multiplied
by 0.011 to take into account 13C natural abundance. Note
the different vertical scales for the two spectra.The increase of the lifetime of the HP state of
propane-d6 at low magnetic field through
creation of
long-lived states is hardly surprising because a significant increase
in singlet lifetime vs conventional T1 was demonstrated in seminal works by Levitt,[56,57] Warren,[58,59] and others.[60] While T1 of HP propane-d6 (∼6 s) is relatively low, it exceeds that of
HP 83Kr,[61] and it is certainly
sufficiently long to enable in vivo administration
via inhalation.Low-field MRI has a potential for biomedical
application of HPpropane-d6 described above, and the feasibility
of subsecond low-field MRI is successfully demonstrated in Figure 7. 2D (without slice selection) GRE MRI images were
acquired with submillimeter (0.88 × 0.88 mm2 pixel
size) spatial resolution in ∼0.7 s. The repetition time (TR
= 20 ms) was limited by the electronics response and can be significantly
accelerated in the future similarly to the GRE MRI (TR = 4.3 ms) presented
in Figure 2a. Furthermore, shorter TR can also
potentially enable sufficiently high scan speed required for 3D imaging
of HP gas.[37,62]
Figure 7
Subsecond single-average
nonslice-selective 2D MRI of 150 mM HP
propane-d6 (∼2 mL volume) at 0.0475
T with 0.88 × 0.88 mm2 spatial and ∼0.7 s temporal
resolution with 28 × 28 mm2 field of view. The same
batch of HP propane was used for subsequent 2D MRI scans every 3 s.
Note that propane-d6 images are more intense
in the center due to greater sample depth in the center of the phantom
variable cylindrical shape. The image on the right shows the corresponding
2D image (8 averages) of 55 M thermally polarized water (∼2.8
mL volume).
The level of signal enhancement
(ε ∼ 6000) enabled
higher SNR in the images of HP propane compared to that of thermally
polarized water (Figure 7). This is important
because potential in vivo direct proton imaging of
this HP contrast agent will have to consider the background signal
from water in the surrounding tissue.[63,64] Moreover,
the available PH was only 0.1% at 0.0475
T. Further improvements to achieve higher PH values are possible for boosting the imaging SNR, which would improve
the dominance of the HP propane-d6 signal
over the thermal water background.A significant discrepancy
between the apparent PH values for HPpropane-d6 at high and low magnetic fields
(∼1% and 0.1%, respectively)
can be explained by (i) the difference in experimental setup (experiments
at high field utilized constant gas flow, whereas low-field experiments
lacked flow control) and (ii) additional relaxation losses in low-field
experiments because HP gas was stopped first, causing an additional
time delay (∼2–3 s). Moreover, partial collapse of an
antiphase NMR peak due to B0 field inhomogeneities
cannot be completely ruled out.[65] Furthermore,
the possibility of incorporation of more than one pair of p-H2 into the final product via a pairwise route
cannot be ruled out (see discussion regarding the mechanism of H/D
exchange above), and extra protons may cause collapse of the NMR line
similarly to that shown in Figures 5b and 6b for natural abundance propane.HP propane-d6 gas was prepared within
seconds via heterogeneous catalytic hydrogenation. While a relatively
small production quantity (a few milliliters) of HP propane-d6 was demonstrated, there are no fundamental
barriers for scaling it up to a clinically relevant dose of ∼1
L. Despite a relatively low percentage polarization (0.1–1%)
achieved for propane to date,[22] it should
be pointed out that each HP propane molecule carries a payload of
two hyperpolarized protons compared to monatomic hyperpolarized 129Xe. Furthermore, protons have a ∼3.6-fold greater
gyromagnetic ratio and a ∼4-fold greater natural abundance
compared to those of 129Xe. The combination (calculated
as a product) of these factors makes HP propane ∼40 times more
sensitive compared to 129Xe at the same polarization level.
Furthermore, the process of SEOP of noble gases is time-consuming,
whereas HP propane-d6 can be prepared
on demand, which can additionally enable signal averaging to improve
SNR through potentially multiple inhalations of HP propane-d6. Nevertheless, the recent technological[44,66−69] and fundamental[14,37] advances[70] in SEOP hyperpolarization of 129Xe enabled 129Xe polarization to approach order unity (i.e., →100%). Therefore,
despite nominally better detection sensitivity of propane vs 129Xe, further improvements in hyperpolarization level of HPpropane are required to truly enable better detection sensitivity
of HP propane-d6 vs HP 129Xe
in addition to the other two realized benefits of (i) direct proton
detection enabling MRI imaging on widely available proton MRI scanners
and (ii) the relative ease and cost (of hyperpolarization equipment)
of HP propane-d6 production.Subsecond single-average
nonslice-selective 2D MRI of 150 mM HPpropane-d6 (∼2 mL volume) at 0.0475
T with 0.88 × 0.88 mm2 spatial and ∼0.7 s temporal
resolution with 28 × 28 mm2 field of view. The same
batch of HP propane was used for subsequent 2D MRI scans every 3 s.
Note that propane-d6 images are more intense
in the center due to greater sample depth in the center of the phantom
variable cylindrical shape. The image on the right shows the corresponding
2D image (8 averages) of 55 M thermally polarized water (∼2.8
mL volume).An additional benefit
of HP propane is the use of proton NMR detection,
which is universally available unlike detection of 129Xe, 13C, and 3He requiring multinuclear detection capability.[71,100] The main limitation of the described use of HP propane-d6 at 0.0475 T is the prerequisite of low-field MRI scanners,
which are less widespread than conventional high-field MRI scanners.
However, it should be pointed out that low-field HP MRI[62,72,73] can be more sensitive than HP
high-field MRI[28] making the low-field MRI
a very well-suited molecular imaging modality. Moreover, specific
adsorption rate (SAR) is negligible at low resonance frequencies,[29] which provides fewer limitations (for example,
SAR can limit the speed of MRI scan) and an increased patient safety.
Conclusions
Propene-d6 gas was efficiently hyperpolarized
using the HET-PHIP technique and Rh/TiO2 catalyst allowing
for preparation of pure (from catalyst) HP propane-d6 gas. While deuteration of the propene precursor was
not effective for increasing T1 at 9.4
T, it nevertheless demonstrates a number of advantages compared to
unlabeled propene. PHIP of propane-d6 provides
significant advantages for the mechanistic studies of the catalytic
hydrogenation reaction, showing in particular that propene gas is
hydrogenated to yield propane, which can be subsequently dehydrogenated
by the catalyst studied. Propene-d6 can
also be useful for high-resolution high-field MRI of flowing HP propane-d6 gas as demonstrated here by 3D MRI with 0.5
× 0.5 × 0.5 mm3 and 17.7 s spatial and temporal
resolution.Low-field NMR at 0.0475 T enabled efficient direct
detection of
PHIP hyperpolarized propane-d6 in contrast
to nondeuterated PHIP polarized propane. The longer-lived low-field
ensembles (NASHVILLE effect) additionally allow for a significant
(factor of ∼10) increase in hyperpolarization decay time. This
new approach can potentially be extended to other perdeuterated precursors
suitable for PHIP hyperpolarization. The feasibility of multiscan
low-field MRI was demonstrated with the spatial and temporal resolution
of 0.88 × 0.88 mm2 (pixel size) and ∼0.7 s,
respectively. Multiple subsecond MR images were recorded on a single
batch of stopped-flow HP propane-d6 gas
during an ∼15 s long time window. The feasibility of high-resolution
MRI should pave the way to biomedical use of PHIP hyperpolarized propane-d6 as an inhalable contrast agent for pulmonary
imaging using proton MRI hardware and pulse sequences.
Authors: John P Mugler; Talissa A Altes; Iulian C Ruset; Isabel M Dregely; Jaime F Mata; G Wilson Miller; Stephen Ketel; Jeffrey Ketel; F William Hersman; Kai Ruppert Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-11-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Panayiotis Nikolaou; Aaron M Coffey; Laura L Walkup; Brogan M Gust; Cristen D LaPierre; Edward Koehnemann; Michael J Barlow; Matthew S Rosen; Boyd M Goodson; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Milton L Truong; Aaron M Coffey; Roman V Shchepin; Kevin W Waddell; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Panayiotis Nikolaou; Aaron M Coffey; Laura L Walkup; Brogan M Gust; Nicholas Whiting; Hayley Newton; Iga Muradyan; Mikayel Dabaghyan; Kaili Ranta; Gregory D Moroz; Matthew S Rosen; Samuel Patz; Michael J Barlow; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Boyd M Goodson Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Pratip Bhattacharya; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Wanda F Reynolds; Shawn Wagner; Niki Zacharias; Henry R Chan; Rolf Bünger; Brian D Ross Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Danila A Barskiy; Oleg G Salnikov; Alexey S Romanov; Matthew A Feldman; Aaron M Coffey; Kirill V Kovtunov; Igor V Koptyug; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: J Magn Reson Date: 2017-01-21 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Nikita V Chukanov; Bryce E Kidd; Larisa M Kovtunova; Valerii I Bukhtiyarov; Roman V Shchepin; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Boyd M Goodson; Kirill V Kovtunov; Igor V Koptyug Journal: J Labelled Comp Radiopharm Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 1.921
Authors: Kirill V Kovtunov; Ekaterina V Pokochueva; Oleg G Salnikov; Samuel F Cousin; Dennis Kurzbach; Basile Vuichoud; Sami Jannin; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Boyd M Goodson; Danila A Barskiy; Igor V Koptyug Journal: Chem Asian J Date: 2018-05-23
Authors: Nuwandi M Ariyasingha; Baptiste Joalland; Hassan R Younes; Oleg G Salnikov; Nikita V Chukanov; Kirill V Kovtunov; Larisa M Kovtunova; Valerii I Bukhtiyarov; Igor V Koptyug; Juri G Gelovani; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: Chemistry Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 5.236
Authors: Oleg G Salnikov; Panayiotis Nikolaou; Nuwandi M Ariyasingha; Kirill V Kovtunov; Igor V Koptyug; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Lukas Ebner; Jeff Kammerman; Bastiaan Driehuys; Mark L Schiebler; Robert V Cadman; Sean B Fain Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Oleg G Salnikov; Kirill V Kovtunov; Panayiotis Nikolaou; Larisa M Kovtunova; Valerii I Bukhtiyarov; Igor V Koptyug; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: Chemphyschem Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 3.102
Authors: Thomas Theis; Nuwandi M Ariyasingha; Roman V Shchepin; Jacob R Lindale; Warren S Warren; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: J Phys Chem Lett Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 6.475
Authors: Richard G Abramson; Lori R Arlinghaus; Adrienne N Dula; C Chad Quarles; Ashley M Stokes; Jared A Weis; Jennifer G Whisenant; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Igor Zhukov; Jason M Williams; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.266
Authors: Oleg G Salnikov; Danila A Barskiy; Aaron M Coffey; Kirill V Kovtunov; Igor V Koptyug; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: Chemphyschem Date: 2016-09-05 Impact factor: 3.102