Danila A Barskiy1, Oleg G Salnikov2, Roman V Shchepin1, Matthew A Feldman1, Aaron M Coffey1, Kirill V Kovtunov2, Igor V Koptyug2, Eduard Y Chekmenev3. 1. Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Sciences , Nashville, Tennessee 37232, United States. 2. International Tomography Center SB RAS, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia; Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia. 3. Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Sciences, Nashville, Tennessee 37232, United States; Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Abstract
Parahydrogen-induced polarization (PHIP) is an NMR hyperpolarization technique that increases nuclear spin polarization by orders of magnitude, and it is particularly well-suited to study hydrogenation reactions. However, the use of high-field NMR spectroscopy is not always possible, especially in the context of potential industrial-scale reactor applications. On the other hand, the direct low-field NMR detection of reaction products with enhanced nuclear spin polarization is challenging due to near complete signal cancellation from nascent parahydrogen protons. We show that hydrogenation products prepared by PHIP can be irradiated with weak (on the order of spin-spin couplings of a few hertz) alternating magnetic field (called Spin-Lock Induced Crossing or SLIC) and consequently efficiently detected at low magnetic field (e.g., 0.05 T used here) using examples of several types of organic molecules containing a vinyl moiety. The detected hyperpolarized signals from several reaction products at tens of millimolar concentrations were enhanced by 10000-fold, producing NMR signals an order of magnitude greater than the background signal from protonated solvents.
Parahydrogen-induced polarization (PHIP) is an NMR hyperpolarization technique that increases nuclear spin polarization by orders of magnitude, and it is particularly well-suited to study hydrogenation reactions. However, the use of high-field NMR spectroscopy is not always possible, especially in the context of potential industrial-scale reactor applications. On the other hand, the direct low-field NMR detection of reaction products with enhanced nuclear spin polarization is challenging due to near complete signal cancellation from nascent parahydrogen protons. We show that hydrogenation products prepared by PHIP can be irradiated with weak (on the order of spin-spin couplings of a few hertz) alternating magnetic field (called Spin-Lock Induced Crossing or SLIC) and consequently efficiently detected at low magnetic field (e.g., 0.05 T used here) using examples of several types of organic molecules containing a vinyl moiety. The detected hyperpolarized signals from several reaction products at tens of millimolar concentrations were enhanced by 10000-fold, producing NMR signals an order of magnitude greater than the background signal from protonated solvents.
Nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR) spectroscopy is a powerful analytical
tool used for a broad range of applications.[1−3] One of the main
limitations of NMR is low detection sensitivity dictated by the weak
interaction energy of nuclear spins with the static magnetic field B0.[4−6] Hence, methods for increasing
the sensitivity of NMR detection are welcome because they decrease
the detection limit and acquisition time. Nuclear spin hyperpolarization
techniques such as dissolution dynamic nuclear polarization (d-DNP),[6] spin exchange optical pumping (SEOP) of noble
gases,[7,8] and parahydrogen-induced polarization (PHIP)[5,9−11] can temporarily increase nuclear spin polarization
(P) by several orders of magnitude (>10000 at
high
magnetic fields[6] and hundreds of millions
at low fields[12]) and thus have become very
popular in the past decade.[13,14] Motivated by biomedical
applications, d-DNP and SEOP have been introduced into the clinical
research realm to probe metabolism, function, response to treatment,
etc.[13,15−17]Recent PHIP innovations
have demonstrated relatively inexpensive
chemistries for production of contrast agents[18,19] and use of aqueous media[20] and heterogeneous
catalysts,[10,21] making PHIP a promising means
for generating new classes of hyperpolarized (HP) molecular contrast
agents for in vivo applications.[22] PHIP
offers a number of advantages compared to d-DNP and SEOP, that is,
(i) very fast (<1 min) hyperpolarization production speed, (ii)
low cost, and (iii) straightforward scalability.[8] In addition, PHIP naturally employs hydrogenation reactions
and therefore can find promising applications beyond biomedicine.
For example, it could be a useful modality for in situ detection and
imaging of industrial-scale hydrogenation and hydrogen-involving reactions,[23,24] which represent a significant fraction of all industrial chemical
processes.[25]In principle, while
the PHIP hyperpolarization technique is inexpensive
and high-throughput, high-resolution NMR spectroscopic detection is
most often conducted at high fields using expensive superconducting
magnets, which additionally have significant limitations of small
sample size. Therefore, despite the low-cost nature of the PHIP hyperpolarization
process, the high-field detection renders the entire analysis process
generally expensive and limited to small samples—counter to
the goals of industrial-scale applications.[26] Alternatively, cheap low-field magnets can be efficiently used for
PHIP signal detection[27−31] because detection sensitivity for HP states has a very weak (B01/4) magnetic field dependence.[27,32] Moreover, low-field detection offers other advantages: (i) reduced B0 susceptibility gradients, and (ii) the possibility
of construction of relatively low-cost large homogeneous magnets that,
in principle, can encompass large chemical reactors.[24,31−34]However, the direct NMR detection of PHIP hyperpolarization
in
low magnetic fields is fundamentally challenging. Indeed, even if
the magnetic equivalence of the parahydrogen (p-H2) singlet state is broken during the hydrogenation reaction,
two p-H2-nascent spins will still reside
in the non-observable pseudo-singlet state[35,36] at low magnetic field (Figure a). In practice, this results in the collapse of the
NMR lines because the difference in the chemical shift of the two
nascent protons is too small with respect to the spin–spin
coupling (JHH) and also with respect to
the magnetic field homogeneity. As a result, the direct detection
of PHIP products suffers from massive (more than 2 orders of magnitude)
signal cancellation.[37−39]
Figure 1
(a) Molecular diagram of unsaturated precursor hydrogenation
by p-H2, leading to the hydrogenated product
with p-H2-nascent protons residing in
the pseudo-singlet
state;[35] then, pseudo-singlet state is
converted to observable magnetization by using spin-lock induced crossing
(SLIC) sequence. (b) Chemical structures of investigated organic molecules
containing vinyl moiety: 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (HEA), vinyl acetate
(VA), 2-vinylpyridine (VPy), and (vinyl)trimethylammonium chloride
(VTMA).
(a) Molecular diagram of unsaturated precursor hydrogenation
by p-H2, leading to the hydrogenated product
with p-H2-nascent protons residing in
the pseudo-singlet
state;[35] then, pseudo-singlet state is
converted to observable magnetization by using spin-lock induced crossing
(SLIC) sequence. (b) Chemical structures of investigated organic molecules
containing vinyl moiety: 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (HEA), vinyl acetate
(VA), 2-vinylpyridine (VPy), and (vinyl)trimethylammonium chloride
(VTMA).Here, we show that application
of spin-lock induced crossing (SLIC)[40] allows
for direct proton readout of HP products
at low magnetic field (e.g., 47.5 mT used here). The SLIC sequence
is a simple low-power radio frequency (RF) pulse with B1 strength on the order of JHH. Specifically, more than 10000-fold NMR signal enhancement enabled
direct 1H low-field detection of 80 mM solutions of 2-hydroxyethyl
propionate, ethyl acetate, 2-ethylpyridine, and (ethyl)trimethylammonium
chloride hyperpolarized via PHIP (Figure ). The presented methodology of PHIP-enhanced
milli-Tesla NMR with SLIC sensing (vs conventional NMR where a hard
RF pulse is applied for signal detection) can be used for fast screening
of potential HP contrast agents by PHIP and potentially without expensive
high-field NMR instruments and isotopic labeling. Moreover, the presented
methodology may be potentially conveniently applied to the visualization
of industrial-scale processes in situ.
Methods
Preparation
of Catalyst/Precursor Solutions
Methanol
(80 mL) was placed in four square bottles (431430, Corning Life Sciences,
NY, USA) and degassed by the repetitive (three times) sequence: argon
flushing, closing the cap, and vortexing the solution. Rhodium catalyst
[(bicyclo[2.2.1]hepta-2,5-diene)[1,4-bis(diphenylphosphino)butane]rhodium(I)
tetrafluoroborate, 0.40 mmol, 0.150 g, 5.00 mM final concentration]
was placed in each bottle. Vinyl acetate (6.40 mmol, 0.551 g, 80.0
mM final concentration), 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (6.40 mmol, 0.742
g, 80.0 mM final concentration), trimethyl(vinyl)ammonium chloride
(6.40 mmol, 1.06 g, 80.0 mM final concentration), and 2-vinylpyridine
(6.40 mmol, 0.672 g, 80.0 mM final concentration) were added to individual
bottles. Water-soluble rhodium catalyst was prepared as described
earlier.[20] Vinyl acetate (8.00 mmol, 0.688
g, 80.0 mM final concentration) and 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (8.00
mmol, 0.928 g, 80.0 mM final concentration) were dissolved in the
aqueous solution of rhodium catalyst (100 mL, 2.60 mM) each. Trimethyl(vinyl)ammonium
chloride (4.00 mmol, 0.664 g, 80.0 mM final concentration) and 2-vinylpyridine
(4.00 mmol, 0.420 g, 80.0 mM final concentration) were dissolved in
aqueous rhodium catalyst solution (50 mL, 5.30 mM). Each bottle containing
the catalyst/precursor solutions was connected to an automated PHIP
polarizer[41] for further experiments.
Preparation of Parahydrogen Gas
For parahydrogen (p-H2) preparation, normal hydrogen was passed
through a spiral copper tube packed with FeO(OH) (Sigma-Aldrich, P/N
371254, 30–50 mesh) and immersed into a liquid N2 Dewar. This procedure produces a stream of hydrogen enriched with
ca. 50% para-isomer.[10]
PHIP Polarizer and Hydrogenation Reaction
A fully automated
parahydrogen-based polarizer was employed for hydrogenation.[42] The prepared stock solutions containing catalyst
and precursor molecule were connected to the heated injection loop
of the polarizer. Hydrogenation of the unsaturated compounds (Figure b) was conducted
in a chemical reactor (∼56 mL volume) of the polarizer at an
∼7.8 atm p-H2 pressure by injecting
the warmed solution from the injection loop and spraying it into the
atmosphere of hot p-H2gas using the back
pressure (∼17 atm) of N2gas (Figure a). Reactor temperature was held within the
range of 55–60 °C. After a variable reaction time, tR (Figure b), 2–2.5 mL of the solution was ejected from
the polarizer into a ∼50 mL detection chamber located inside
the RF probe within a 47.5 mT magnet. The magnet was located ∼0.5
m away from the polarizer, allowing very short (<1 s) ejection
time of the reacted solution from the reactor to the detection chamber
(Corning 50 mL PP centrifuge tube). A TTL microcontroller of the PHIP
polarizer was used to switch solenoid valves that control gas and
chemical delivery to the high-pressure reactor and ejection to the
detection chamber. The detection chamber was cleaned after each NMR
signal acquisition before a new portion of the solution from the polarizer
was ejected.
Figure 2
(a) Schematic diagram of experimental setup. The reactor
was kept
at 50–60 °C. (b) Sequence of events: injection of Rh complex
solution (in CH3OH or in H2O) into reactor filled
with ∼7.8 atm of p-H2, variable
reaction time, injection into the detection chamber located inside
a 47.5 mT magnet, subsequent application of SLIC pulse and signal
acquisition. (c) 1H NMR signal of HEP in methanol obtained
after application of SLIC pulse (blue) and NMR signal obtained after
application of a hard π/4 RF pulse (red); note the scaling by
a factor of 10.
(a) Schematic diagram of experimental setup. The reactor
was kept
at 50–60 °C. (b) Sequence of events: injection of Rh complex
solution (in CH3OH or in H2O) into reactor filled
with ∼7.8 atm of p-H2, variable
reaction time, injection into the detection chamber located inside
a 47.5 mT magnet, subsequent application of SLIC pulse and signal
acquisition. (c) 1HNMR signal of HEP in methanol obtained
after application of SLIC pulse (blue) and NMR signal obtained after
application of a hard π/4 RF pulse (red); note the scaling by
a factor of 10.
Low-Field (2 MHz) NMR Detection
A commercially available
MR Kea2 spectrometer (Magritek, Wellington, New Zealand) was used
for NMR detection as described by Waddell et al.[43] The magnet (2 MHz Magritek core analyzer, Halbach array,
radial field direction) had a homogeneity of 20 ppm over 4 cm diameter
of spherical volume. The detection chamber was placed in the home-built 1H RF coil[44] located in the magnet
(Figure S1). Radio frequency calibration
using a 5 mM aqueous solution of CuSO4 in a 2.8 mL spherical
phantom yielded a 90° 1H excitation pulse width of
177 μs at 0.22 W.
SLIC RF Pulse Sequence
Spin order
of the p-H2singlet state was converted
to observable magnetization
using the SLIC sequence developed by DeVience et al.[40] In order to generate low-power (∼1 μW) SLIC
pulses, additional attenuators (Bird Technologies, 10 W, A series,
male/female N connector, 30 and 20 dB) were inserted between the output
of the Tomco RF amplifier (P/N BT00250-AlphaS-Dual, Tomco Technologies,
Stepney, Australia) and TR switch of the spectrometer (Figure S1). The SLIC pulse amplitude was calibrated
by measuring the TR switch voltage output on an oscilloscope (Tektronix,
TDS 3034C) and comparing it to the measurements for the π/2
RF pulse calibrated by nutation experiment. Acquisition of the 1HNMR signal started immediately after injection of the reactor
content to the detection chamber followed by a SLIC pulse (Figure b). Optimization
of SLIC parameters (B1 amplitude and duration,
τSLIC) was performed for the 2-hydroxyethyl propionate
(the product of 2-hydroxyethyl acrylatehydrogenation), and then parameters
found were used for the detection of all other substrates under study.
Results
We carried out hydrogenation of several molecules
containing a
vinyl moiety (Figure ): 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (HEA), vinyl acetate (VA), 2-vinylpyridine
(VPy), and (vinyl)trimethylammonium chloride (VTMA), with p-H2, using a home-built automated PHIP polarizer
(Figure a). The compounds
were chosen based on their importance in the context of potential
PHIP applications. For example, ethyl acetate can be potentially employed
to trace the metabolism of brain damage and cancer; 2-ethylpyridine
(EPy) has shown the potential for 15N pH mapping/imaging;[45] (ethyl)trimethylammonium is structurally similar
to choline, which is a key metabolic signature in many cancers;[46−48] 2-hydroxyethyl propionate can be used for in vivo angiography, and
it is also a typical test molecule for PHIP studies.[49,50] Hydrogenation of the vinyl motif (−CH=CH2) by p-H2 for the molecules studied leads
to ethyl group (−CH2–CH3) formation,
where two hydrogens come from the same p-H2 molecule, and these nascent parahydrogen nuclei are incorporated
into two chemically inequivalent positions. Due to the identical structure
of the intentionally chosen hydrogenated motif for all substrates
investigated (Figure b), their NMR parameters and J coupling patterns
are relatively similar (Table S1).Use of the automated home-built low-field PHIP polarizer made possible
the fast conversion of 80 mM unsaturated substrates into hydrogenation
reaction products. Reactions were carried out by fast (<4 s) injection
of 3–5 mL of the catalyst/precursor solution into an atmosphere
of p-H2. Then reaction solutions were
quickly (<1 s) pushed to the detection chamber located in the bore
of a 47.5 mT magnet; the SLIC RF pulse was applied immediately, and
it was followed by 1HNMR signal acquisition (Figure a,b). The intensity
of the NMR signal obtained after SLIC was at least 2 orders of magnitude
greater than the signal intensity obtained after application of a
hard π/4 pulse as typically employed in high-field PHIP experiments[11] (Figure c).We note that the hydrogenation reactions were carried
out in nondeuterated
solvents, such as methanol and water. The NMR signal resulting from
∼80 mM of hydrogenated material after SLIC was 10–30
times greater than the NMR signal originating from the solvent (Figure a,b). Besides providing
a direct comparison with the HP signal, utilization of nondeuterated
solvents here advantageously allowed calibration of experimental parameters
(e.g., RF pulses, B1 frequency offset,
and adjustments to account for minor magnetic field drift typical
for low-field scanners based on permanent magnets and in the absence
of a deuteriumspin-lock apparatus). The signal enhancement of HP
resonances was evaluated by computing the ratio of HP signal to the
signal originating from the thermally polarized solvent (since the
amount of material injected into the detection chamber each time may
vary). Maximal apparent polarization percentage (PAPP) of ∼0.23% was found for 2-hydroxyethyl propionate
(HEP) when hydrogenation reaction of HEA was performed in methanol.
Lower values were found for ethyl acetate and when water was used
as a solvent. Hydrogenation of VPy and VTMA was also detected by SLIC,
but their NMR signals were significantly lower (see Discussion).
Figure 3
1H NMR spectroscopy of HEP at 47.5 mT. (a)
Left: 1H NMR signal of reaction mixture injected into the
detection
chamber at equilibrium nuclear spin polarization; the NMR signal originates
primarily from methanol solvent. Right: 1H HP NMR signal
obtained after SLIC pulse applied to the reaction mixture (∼0.08
M of 2-hydroxyetyl propionate (HEP) in methanol). (b) Left: 1H NMR signal of reaction mixture injected into the detection chamber
at equilibrium nuclear spin polarization; the NMR signal originates
primarily from water solvent. Right: 1H HP NMR signal obtained
after SLIC pulse applied to the reaction mixture (∼0.08 M of
HEP in water). (c) Dependence of the SLIC signal (normalized to the
thermal signal of the solvent) on the reaction time for HEP in methanol.
(d) Dependence of the SLIC signal (normalized to the thermal signal
of the solvent) on the reaction time for HEP in water.
1HNMR spectroscopy of HEP at 47.5 mT. (a)
Left: 1HNMR signal of reaction mixture injected into the
detection
chamber at equilibrium nuclear spin polarization; the NMR signal originates
primarily from methanol solvent. Right: 1HHPNMR signal
obtained after SLIC pulse applied to the reaction mixture (∼0.08
M of 2-hydroxyetyl propionate (HEP) in methanol). (b) Left: 1HNMR signal of reaction mixture injected into the detection chamber
at equilibrium nuclear spin polarization; the NMR signal originates
primarily from water solvent. Right: 1HHPNMR signal obtained
after SLIC pulse applied to the reaction mixture (∼0.08 M of
HEP in water). (c) Dependence of the SLIC signal (normalized to the
thermal signal of the solvent) on the reaction time for HEP in methanol.
(d) Dependence of the SLIC signal (normalized to the thermal signal
of the solvent) on the reaction time for HEP in water.Varying the reaction time allowed the build-up
and decay of the
hyperpolarized signal to be detected (Figure c,d). We found that the signal decayed with
the time constant TS ranging between 5
and 15 s depending on the studied molecule and the solvent. The TS values obtained correlate well with prior
results in the literature. For example, TS of 6.4 ± 1.2 s was measured for EA at Earth’s magnetic
field in ALTADENA conditions,[18] while the
present study yielded TS of EA to be 7.2
± 0.5 s in methanol (see Table for the TS values for
all studied substrates in methanol and in water). One may also estimate
the effective hydrogenation reaction kinetic constant kr by fitting the experimental data with suitable analytical
expression (eq S1) describing the build-up
and decay of a hyperpolarized signal (Figure c,d and Supporting Information).
Table 1
Kinetic and Relaxation Parameters
Extracted from Fitting of the Build-up and Decay Curves for HEP, EA,
ETMA, and EPy (Catalyst Concentration was 5 mM)
methanol
HEP
EA
ETMA
EPy
kr (s–1)
11.8 ± 1.8
11.5 ± 2.3
14.1 ± 2.5
2.8 ± 0.5
TS (s)
5.5 ± 0.2
7.2 ± 0.5
17.1 ± 1.2
In principle,
the use of an automated PHIP polarizer with a high-pressure
injection reactor is not mandatory; that is, high-pressure NMR tubes
with p-H2 bubbling can be employed (similar
to the recent studies of 13C-VAhydrogenation and hyperpolarization
with signal amplification by reversible exchange).[18,51] Nevertheless, the use of an automated PHIP polarizer benefited the
present study because a series of experiments could be performed routinely
and identically, which allowed us to quickly find optimal conditions
for performing a singlet-to-magnetization transformation, that is,
optimal RF pulse amplitude, frequency offset, and duration of the
SLIC pulse (Figure ).
Figure 4
(a) Dependence of the SLIC signal of HEP in methanol (normalized
to the thermal signal of the solvent) vs B1 amplitude at the SLIC duration (τSLIC) of 0.6 s;
black squares correspond to experimental results, and blue line corresponds
to simulation assuming ±5 Hz RF pulse offset (i.e., simulating B0 inhomogeneity). (b) Dependence of the SLIC
signal vs SLIC duration (time) at B1 amplitude
of 15 Hz; black squares correspond to experimental results, and blue
line corresponds to simulation.
(a) Dependence of the SLIC signal of HEP in methanol (normalized
to the thermal signal of the solvent) vs B1 amplitude at the SLIC duration (τSLIC) of 0.6 s;
black squares correspond to experimental results, and blue line corresponds
to simulation assuming ±5 Hz RF pulse offset (i.e., simulating B0 inhomogeneity). (b) Dependence of the SLIC
signal vs SLIC duration (time) at B1 amplitude
of 15 Hz; black squares correspond to experimental results, and blue
line corresponds to simulation.
Discussion
The true singlet state of two spins (i.e., the
state with a total
spin of 0) is not NMR detectable because the singlet state has no
magnetic moment.[52] The best example is
the nuclear spinsinglet state of p-H2 that produces no NMR signal. Another way to explain the absence
of the observable NMR signal is the realization that the transitions
between exchange antisymmetric singlet state and exchange symmetric
triplet states are forbidden. However, once the magnetic equivalence
of the two H atoms is broken (e.g., by introducing two hydrogen atoms
from the same p-H2 molecule into a nonsymmetric
molecular environment), the spin order of the singlet state can be
manifested as a nearly 100% nuclear spin polarization.[53] Hydrogenation reactions can be employed in a
way that both hydrogen atoms from the same p-H2 molecule are transferred to the product as a pair (pairwise
addition), resulting in a canonical PHIP effect.[11,53,54] However, the singlet state is considered
to be truly broken (i.e., resulting in two well-resolved resonances
in the NMR spectrum) only if the chemical shift difference between p-H2-nascent protons (δHA and
δHB) is greater than the spin–spin coupling
constant JHA–HB between them (corresponding
to the condition of a weak coupling regime).[55] Otherwise—in a strong coupling regime (sometimes referred
to as inverse weak coupling regime[56]),
that is, (δHA – δHB) < JHA-HB—the two nascent protons
reside in a pseudo-singlet state even after the act of pairwise addition
of p-H2.[35] For
example, for the case where (δHA – δHB) is 3 ppm and J coupling is 7 Hz, the strong
coupling regime occurs for magnetic fields below 0.055 T. The ethyl
moiety (−CH2–CH3) is a chemical
motif found in a wide range of organic molecules which has a typical J coupling constant of ∼7 Hz between methylene and
methyl groups, and the corresponding chemical shift difference (δMETHYLENE – δMETHYL) ranges from 0.5
to 3 ppm (Table S1). Since hydrogenation
of vinyl or acrylate groups produces ethyl or propionate groups respectively
(note that both cases are considered as an isolated five spin system
−CH2−CH3), all four molecules
studied form strongly coupled spin systems if hydrogenation by p-H is carried out in the fields
below 0.055 T.Although the pseudo-singlet state is not directly
detectable by
NMR in the strong coupling regime,[38,56−58] the spin order from the pseudo-singletspin state can be transformed
into the observable magnetization using the SLIC sequence introduced
by DeVience and co-workers.[40,59] They demonstrated that
low-power continuous wave decoupling (with alternating magnetic field B1 amplitude on the order of JHA–HB and with frequency set at (δHA + δHB)/2) enables coherent transfer of population
between the singlet state |S⟩ = (|αβ⟩
– |βα⟩)/√2 and the state |φ⟩ = (|αα⟩
– |αβ⟩ – |βα⟩
+ |ββ⟩)/2. The latter term corresponds to magnetization
aligned along the −x axis in a rotating frame,
and it is readily observable by NMR.[52] The
optimum duration of SLIC RF irradiation depends on the combination
of NMR resonance frequency, JHA–HB, and (δHA – δHB). Advantageously,
this transformation does not require any other RF pulses, making it
relatively straightforward to implement from the hardware perspective.However, we found that while the analytical model presented by
DeVience et al. works well for the simple case of a two-spin system,
it cannot properly describe the observed patterns obtained in the
experiment with the five-spin systems of ethyl groups studied here.
For example, our results show that instead of a relatively narrow
maximum at B1 = JHA–HB as predicted by the simple theory, there is a
broad maximum at B1 ∼ 2JHA–HB, and the optimal SLIC pulse duration
is about √2/Δυ (where Δυ is the chemical
shift difference (δMETHYLENE – δMETHYL) expressed in Hz), that is, two times longer than that
predicted for the two-spin model[40] (Figure ). Here, detailed
spin dynamics simulations were carried out (see Supporting Information), resulting in the graphs (Figure ) where SLIC signal
is plotted versus SLIC B1 amplitude, SLIC B1 offset, and SLIC duration, where NMR signal
maxima form concentric waves with radii of approximately 3JHA–HB/2, 2JHA–HB, and 5JHA–HB/2. The pattern of
the map also changes with SLIC duration, although there is a clear
indication of an optimal pulse duration (τSLIC) yielding
the global maximum of the produced signal. We note that the spin dynamics
for five-spin systems is much more complex than that for two-spin
systems but yet relatively easily predictable using the density matrix
formalism.
Figure 5
Simulation of 1H NMR signal dependence in −CH2CH3 system on SLIC parameters: B1 amplitude (Hz), SLIC pulse offset (Hz) (position of
zero offset corresponds to the center frequency between CH3 and CH2 resonances), and SLIC pulse duration (τSLIC). Relaxation effects were not included in the simulation.
See Supporting Information for animated
gif files and the corresponding signal dependences for two-spin system.
Simulation of 1HNMR signal dependence in −CH2CH3 system on SLIC parameters: B1 amplitude (Hz), SLIC pulse offset (Hz) (position of
zero offset corresponds to the center frequency between CH3 and CH2 resonances), and SLIC pulse duration (τSLIC). Relaxation effects were not included in the simulation.
See Supporting Information for animated
gif files and the corresponding signal dependences for two-spin system.Although low-field PHIP hyperpolarizers
have been used previously
to prepare HP molecules via pairwise p-H2 addition,[43,49] prior attempts to perform direct 1HNMR signal detection of nascent HP protons resulted in a
very weak antiphase NMR signal.[60] Without
SLIC or other singlet-to-magnetization pulse sequences,[61] direct proton detection at low fields is unlikely
to yield high signal-to-noise ratio to study reaction conversion and
pairwise selectivity. Building on our previous experience with SLIC
detection of HP propanegas prepared via heterogeneous PHIP,[38] SLIC proton detection of HP liquid was employed
in a low magnetic field of 47.5 mT, and the 1HNMR signal
obtained was approximately 2 orders of magnitude greater than the 1HNMR signal obtained using conventional hard (i.e., short
duration and high amplitude) RF pulses (Figure c). To the best of our knowledge, the fact
that the action of hard RF pulses on a spin system leads to NMR signal
significantly lower than that obtained by low-frequency irradiation
is somewhat unique in the field of NMR spectroscopy. Moreover, one
can entertain an analogy with a safe, which is hard to open using
brute force (e.g., a hammer), but a tiny key with appropriate symmetry
can easily crack the lock. It should also be emphasized that unlike
the vast majority of hyperpolarization techniques, where the preparation
of singlet states requires additional preparation steps, direct creation
of pseudo-singlet states is an inherent and unique feature of the
PHIP technique.By varying the “reaction” time
(i.e., the time period
that the reaction solution remains in the reactor following the injection),
we measured singlet state lifetime (TS) (Figure c,d). It
was found that the NMR signal decays with a time constant of about
5–15 s depending on the solvent nature (i.e., methanol vs water)
(Table and Supporting Information). These values indicate
that, despite the spin systems being in pseudo-singlet states, their
lifetimes were not significantly longer compared to T1; that is, they were not several fold greater. This is,
however, not surprising because the existence of long-lived spin states
requires specific symmetry properties, which may not be present in
the systems studied here.[62−64] One should note, however, that
such examples can occur, for example, in previously reported long-lived
HP propane states.[38,65] Future studies are certainly
warranted to identify other examples of long-lived HPspin states
that could find use in biomedical and material science applications.[66]The efficiency of a singlet-to-magnetization
conversion by SLIC
may be analyzed using the boundary transformation methodology presented
by Levitt.[67] In the case of the two-spin
system, it is possible to “extract” nearly 100% of the
singletspin order and transform it into observable magnetization
(∼91% when using the SLIC pulse sequence). At the same time
for a five-spin system, such as −CH2–CH3, it is fundamentally possible to transform up to only 55%
of spin order (Supporting Information).
Our calculations for SLIC show ∼27% transformation efficiency
(Figure ), indicating
that there could be a more efficient RF pulse sequence alternative
to the SLIC implementation employed here.[68,69] This inefficiency partially explains the relatively low apparent
polarization level of ∼0.23% obtained for HEP and even lower
values for other studied molecules. Other factors that likely had
a significant negative impact on the efficiency of SLIC spin transformation
include spin relaxation processes and B0 magnetic field inhomogeneity. Indeed, our calculations show that
the efficiency of spin order transfer depends dramatically on the B1 RF frequency offset (Figure ). Static B0 magnetic
field drifts and imperfections across the sample can therefore cause
significant shifts away from the optimal transfer conditions, thus
leaving a potentially large fraction of the population hidden in the
“dark” unobservable nuclear pseudo-singlet state. The
use of more homogeneous B0 and B1 fields can likely significantly improve SLIC
efficiency and consequently PAPP in the
future. Strong dependence of singlet-to-magnetization transformation
on the magnetic field inhomogeneity is a substantial limitation of
the presented SLIC-based low-field detection method.Simple
analysis also determines the limits of the B0 magnetic field strength, which should be optimal for
parahydrogen-based SLIC sensing presented here. First of all, the
magnetic field should not be too high (the weakly coupled regime);
otherwise, the singletspin state is no longer an eigenstate of the
nuclear spin Hamiltonian. The strong coupling condition can provide
a quick estimate of the upper limit of the low magnetic field range, B0 < 2πJHA–HB/γΔυ, where γ is the proton gyromagnetic
ratio. At the same time, very low magnetic fields can result in prohibitively
long SLIC pulse duration (since, generally, τSLIC ∼ 1/Δυ), resulting in significant relaxation
losses and/or decoherences during an excessively long SLIC pulse.
Thus, the magnetic field of 0.0475 T employed here lies in the “SLIC-safe
range” for the studied spin systems; however, the optimal field
should be calculated for a particular spin system under study.We used 1H and 13C high-field (400 MHz) NMR
spectroscopy to determine reaction conversion levels by taking aliquots
of stock solutions before and after the reaction. One can see that
measured conversion values were relatively high for all studied molecules
(Figure ). Lower levels
for conversion of VPy and VTMA (25–40%) compared to nearly
100% conversion for HEA and VA can be explained by the presence of
nitrogen in the former molecules. In case of VPy, the electron-donating
N site can potentially compete with the double bond for a binding
event to the Rh center, thereby lowering the probability of forming
the active catalytic species and, consequently, decreasing reaction
yields. For VTMA, the nitrogen atom possesses positive charge, which
can lead to repulsion of the molecule from the positively charged
cationic Rh center due to electrostatic interactions of charged ions.
The determined conversion can be compared with the intensity of SLIC
signal for the same experiments (Figure ). The SLIC signal from reaction products
does not linearly correlate with the conversion and decreases in the
following order of substrates used in hydrogenation: HEA > VA >
VTMA
> VPy.
Figure 6
Hydrogenation reaction conversion and SLIC signal (normalized to
the signal of the solvent) for substrates in water. Conversion was
measured using high-resolution high-field 1H 400 MHz NMR
of aliquots before and after the reaction.
Hydrogenation reaction conversion and SLIC signal (normalized to
the signal of the solvent) for substrates in water. Conversion was
measured using high-resolution high-field 1H 400 MHz NMR
of aliquots before and after the reaction.One should not find surprising that the different substrates
show
a different SLIC signal. This is a result of different chemical dynamics
and pairwise addition behavior in hydrogenation reactions. It is known
that the interplay between the substrate and the catalyst is very
important, and variations of the substrate or catalyst structure that
seem insignificant at the first glance may have drastic consequences
on a pairwise addition performance.[70] A
good recent example supporting this statement is the homogeneous batch-mode
hydrogenation of propylene in methanol using two Rh-based catalysts:
[Rh(COD)(dppb)]BF4 and [Rh(NBD)(dppb)]BF4 (where
COD = 1,5-cyclooctadiene, NBD = norbornadiene, dppb = 1,4-bis(diphenylphosphino)butane).[71] Despite the fact that their structure is very
similar and differ only in the structure of the ligand, PHIP effects
observed for propane are 3–8 times higher when the latter catalyst
is used. While discrepancy between the conversion and the SLIC signal
can be treated as a disadvantage for a general applicability of the
presented method for low-field monitoring of hydrogenation reactions,
this observation is advantageous for probing the pairwise nature of p-H2 addition (i.e., reaction selectivity) for
HPNMR and MRI. This means that large libraries of compounds can be
screened to identify promising candidates for PHIP HP contrast agents
and for optimization of PHIP processes and hyperpolarization equipment.
Moreover, since such selectivity probing does not require chemical
shift dispersion (which is generally lacking at low magnetic fields),
the low-field NMR modality presented here can be used to monitor the
production of HP products in larger, more complex reactors operating
with high pressures and temperatures; for example, the reactor used
here already operated at >17 atm of gas pressure and >55 °C.
We foresee that low-field NMR (and MRI) of large-scale industrial
hydrogenation processes—hydrogenation of vegetable oils, hydrodesulfurization
of petroleum, and other large-scale applications of hydrogenation
in the industry—can become a useful spectroscopic and imaging
tool.
Conclusions
In conclusion, we have shown that low-field
NMR and low-amplitude
RF irradiation termed spin-lock induced crossing can be used to detect
the signal originating from HP molecules produced via hydrogenation
reactions with p-H2. Signal enhancement
of more than 10000 allowed the build-up and decay of HP reaction products
upon hydrogenation of several organic molecules (2-hydroxyethyl acrylate,
vinyl acetate, 2-vinylpyridine, (vinyl)trimethylammonium chloride)
to be detected. Moreover, since the signal from ≤80 mM HP reaction
products was significantly greater than the signal of thermally polarized
solvents, direct proton detection was demonstrated in protonated solvents
such as methanol and water, which can provide a significant potential
application for molecular sensing of industrial-scale processes in
the presence of large concentrations of background species. While
it was shown that chemical conversion and SLIC signal are not directly
correlated, this finding can be very useful for quick analysis of
selectivity of hydrogen addition in catalysis and for production of
HP contrast agents by PHIP technique; that is, despite the efficient
overall hydrogenation, some compounds may exhibit a lower degree of p-H2 pairwise addition. Moreover, the presented
method allows for a quality assurance of the HP state of the molecules
before performing experiments with more expensive isotopically enriched
(e.g., 13C) compounds[29,72] using polarization
transfer schemes. Lastly, we showed that spin dynamics during the
SLIC pulse for five-spin systems (e.g., molecules such as presented
here, containing CH3–CH2– moiety)
is much more complex than SLIC for two-spin systems. However, it is
possible to adequately predict optimal detection parameters, such
as B1 amplitude, offset, and SLIC time.
Low-field NMR signals are generally far less sensitive to susceptibility-induced
magnetic field gradients (because these gradients scale linearly with B0 strength), which is a useful property for
studies of heterogeneous reactions (e.g., liquid/gas, liquid/solid,
gas/solid) frequently practiced in industrial hydrogenation processes.
Combined with greater penetration depth, which also scales inversely
with B0, low-field SLIC sensing may potentially
provide a complementary analytical technology for analysis of hydrogenation
reactions on a large scale.
Authors: Richard A Green; Ralph W Adams; Simon B Duckett; Ryan E Mewis; David C Williamson; Gary G R Green Journal: Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 9.795
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: Roman V Shchepin; Danila A Barskiy; Aaron M Coffey; Isaac V Manzanera Esteve; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Jan-Bernd Hövener; Niels Schwaderlapp; Thomas Lickert; Simon B Duckett; Ryan E Mewis; Louise A R Highton; Stephen M Kenny; Gary G R Green; Dieter Leibfritz; Jan G Korvink; Jürgen Hennig; Dominik von Elverfeldt Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2013 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Aaron M Coffey; Roman V Shchepin; Milton L Truong; Ken Wilkens; Wellington Pham; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Alexandra M Olaru; Soumya S Roy; Lyrelle S Lloyd; Steven Coombes; Gary G R Green; Simon B Duckett Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 6.222
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: Oleg G Salnikov; Roman V Shchepin; Nikita V Chukanov; Lamya Jaigirdar; Wellington Pham; Kirill V Kovtunov; Igor V Koptyug; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: J Phys Chem C Nanomater Interfaces Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Andrey N Pravdivtsev; Ivan V Skovpin; Alexandra I Svyatova; Nikita V Chukanov; Larisa M Kovtunova; Valerii I Bukhtiyarov; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Kirill V Kovtunov; Igor V Koptyug; Jan-Bernd Hövener Journal: J Phys Chem A Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 2.781
Authors: Kun Shen; Angus W J Logan; Johannes F P Colell; Junu Bae; Gerardo X Ortiz; Thomas Theis; Warren S Warren; Steven J Malcolmson; Qiu Wang Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 16.823
Authors: Nikita V Chukanov; Oleg G Salnikov; Roman V Shchepin; Kirill V Kovtunov; Igor V Koptyug; Eduard Y Chekmenev Journal: ACS Omega Date: 2018-06-20
Authors: Kirill F Sheberstov; Hans-Martin Vieth; Herbert Zimmermann; Bogdan A Rodin; Konstantin L Ivanov; Alexey S Kiryutin; Alexandra V Yurkovskaya Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 4.379