Dynamic nuclear polarization

DNP was first realized using the concept of the Overhauser effect, which is the perturbation of nuclear spin level populations observed in metals and free radicals when electron spin transitions are saturated by microwave irradiation. This effect relies on stochastic interactions between an electron and a nucleus. The 'dynamic' initially meant to highlight the time-dependent and random interactions in this polarization transfer process.

The DNP phenomenon was theoretically predicted by Albert Overhauser in 1953 [11] and initially drew some criticism from Norman Ramsey, Felix Bloch and other renowned physicists of the time on the grounds of being "thermodynamically improbable". The experimental confirmation by Carver and Slichter [12] as well as an apologetic letter from Ramsey both reached Overhauser in the same year.[13]

The so-called electron-nucleus cross-relaxation, which is responsible for the DNP phenomenon is caused by rotational and translational modulation of the electron-nucleus hyperfine coupling. The theory of this process is based essentially on the second-order time-dependent perturbation theory solution of the von Neumann equation for the spin density matrix.

While the Overhauser effect relies on time-dependent electron-nuclear interactions, the remaining polarizing mechanisms rely on time-independent electron-nuclear and electron-electron interactions.

The simplest spin system exhibiting the SE DNP mechanism is an electron-nucleus spin pair. The Hamiltonian of the system can be written as:

${\displaystyle H_{0}=\omega _{e}S_{z}+\omega _{\rm {n}}I_{z}+AS_{z}I_{z}+B\ S_{z}I_{x}}$

These terms are referring respectively to the electron and nucleus Zeeman interaction with the external magnetic field, and the hyperfine interaction. S and I are the electron and nuclear spin operators in the Zeeman basis (spin ​¹⁄₂ considered for simplicity), ω_e and ω_n are the electron and nuclear Larmor frequencies, and A and B are the secular and pseudo-secular parts of the hyperfine interaction. For simplicity we will only consider the case of |A|,|B|<<|ω_n|. In such a case A has little effect on the evolution of the spin system. During DNP a MW irradiation is applied at a frequency ω_MW and intensity ω₁, resulting in a rotating frame Hamiltonian given by

${\displaystyle H=\Delta \omega _{e}\;S_{z}+\omega _{\rm {n}}I_{z}+AS_{z}I_{z}+B\ S_{z}I_{x}+\omega _{1}S_{x}}$where ${\displaystyle \Delta \omega _{e}=\omega _{e}-\omega _{\rm {MW}}}$

The MW irradiation can excite the electron single quantum transitions ("allowed transitions") when ω_MW is close to ω_e, resulting in a loss of the electron polarization. In addition, due to the small state mixing caused by the B term of the hyperfine interaction, it is possible to irradiate on the electron-nucleus zero quantum or double quantum ("forbidden") transitions around ω_MW = ω_e ± ω_n, resulting in polarization transfer between the electrons and the nuclei. The effective MW irradiation on these transitions is approximately given by Bω₁/2ω_n.

In a simple picture of an electron-nucleus two-spin system, the solid effect occurs when a transition involving an electron-nucleus mutual flip (called Zero Quantum or Double Quantum) is excited by a microwave irradiation, in the presence of relaxation. This kind of transition is in general weakly allowed, meaning that the transition moment for the above microwave excitation results from a second-order effect of the electron-nuclear interactions and thus requires stronger microwave power to be significant, and its intensity is decreased by an increase of the external magnetic field B₀. As a result, the DNP enhancement from the solid effect scales as B₀⁻² when all the relaxation parameters are kept constant. Once this transition is excited and the relaxation is acting, the magnetization is spread over the "bulk" nuclei (the major part of the detected nuclei in an NMR experiment) via the nuclear dipole network. This polarizing mechanism is optimal when the exciting microwave frequency shifts up or down by the nuclear Larmor frequency from the electron Larmor frequency in the discussed two-spin system. The direction of frequency shifts corresponds to the sign of DNP enhancements. Solid effect exist in most cases but is more easily observed if the linewidth of the EPR spectrum of involved unpaired electrons is smaller than the nuclear Larmor frequency of the corresponding nuclei.

In the case of Magic Angle Spinning DNP (MAS-DNP), the mechanism is different but to understand it, a two spins system can still be used. The polarization process of the nucleus still occurs when the microwave irradiation excites the Double Quantum or Zero Quantum transition, but due to the fact that the sample is spinning, this condition is only met for a short time at each rotor cycle (which makes it periodical). The DNP process in that case happens step by step and not continuously as in the static case.[14]

The cross effect requires two unpaired electrons as the source of high polarization. Without special condition, such a three spins system can only generate a solid effect type of polarization. However, when the resonance frequency of each electron is separated by the nuclear Larmor frequency, and when the two electrons are dipolar coupled, another mechanism occurs: the cross-effect. In that case, the DNP process is the result of irradiation of an allowed transition (called single quantum) as a result the strength of microwave irradiation is less demanded than that in the solid effect. In practice, the correct EPR frequency separation is accomplished through random orientation of paramagnetic species with g-anisotropy. Since the "frequency" distance between the two electrons should be equal to the Larmor frequency of the targeted nucleus, Cross-Effect can only occur if the inhomogeneously broadened EPR lineshape has a linewidth broader than the nuclear Larmor frequency. Therefore, as this linewidth is proportional to external magnetic field B₀, the overall DNP efficiency (or the enhancement of nuclear polarization) scales as B₀⁻¹. This remains true as long as the relaxation times remain constant. Usually going to higher field leads to longer nuclear relaxation times and this may partially compensate for the line broadening reduction. In practice, in a glassy sample, the probability of having two dipolarly coupled electrons separated by the Larmor frequency is very scarce. Nonetheless this mechanism is so efficient that it can be experimentally observed alone or in addition to the Solid-Effect.

As in the static case, the MAS-DNP mechanism of Cross effect is deeply modified due to the time dependent energy level. By taking a simple three spin system, it has been demonstrated that the Cross-Effect mechanism is different in the Static and MAS case. The Cross Effect is the result of very fast multi-step process involving EPR single quantum transition, electron dipolar anti-crossing and Cross Effect degeneracy conditions. In the most simple case the MAS-DNP mechanism can be explained by the combination of a single quantum transition followed by the Cross-Effect degeneracy condition, or by the electron-dipolar anti-crossing followed by the Cross-Effect degeneracy condition.[14] [15]

This in turn change dramatically the CE dependence over the static magnetic field which doesn't scale like B₀⁻¹ and makes it much more efficient than the solid effect.[15]

Thermal mixing is an energy exchange phenomenon between the electron spin ensemble and the nuclear spin, which can be thought of as using multiple electron spins to provide hyper-nuclear polarization. Note that the electron spin ensemble acts as a whole because of stronger inter-electron interactions. The strong interactions lead to a homogeneously broadened EPR lineshape of the involved paramagnetic species. The linewidth is optimized for polarization transfer from electrons to nuclei, when it is close to the nuclear Larmor frequency. The optimization is related to an embedded three-spin (electron-electron-nucleus) process that mutually flips the coupled three spins under the energy conservation (mainly) of the Zeeman interactions. Due to the inhomogeneous component of the associated EPR lineshape, the DNP enhancement by this mechanism also scales as B₀⁻¹.

¹H DNP-NMR enhancement curve for cellulose char heated for several hours at 350 °C. P_H - 1 is the relative polarization or intensity of the ¹H signal.

Many types of solid materials can exhibit more than one mechanism for DNP. Some examples are carbonaceous materials such bituminous coal and charcoal (wood or cellulose heated at high temperatures above their decomposition point which leaves a residual solid char). To separate out the mechanisms of DNP and to characterize the electron-nuclear interactions occurring in such solids a DNP enhancement curve can be made. A typical enhancement curve is obtained by measuring the maximum intensity of the NMR FID of the ¹H nuclei, for example, in the presence of continuous microwave irradiation as a function of the microwave frequency offset.

Carbonaceous materials such as cellulose char contain large numbers of stable free electrons delocalized in large polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Such electrons can give large polarization enhancements to nearby protons via proton-proton spin-diffusion if they are not so close together that the electron-nuclear dipolar interaction does not broaden the proton resonance beyond detection. For small isolated clusters, the free electrons are fixed and give rise to solid-state enhancements (SS). The maximal proton solid-state enhancement is observed at microwave offsets of ω ≈ ω_e ± ω_H, where ω_e and ω_H are the electron and nuclear Larmor frequencies, respectively. For larger and more densely concentrated aromatic clusters, the free electrons can undergo rapid electron exchange interactions. These electrons give rise to an Overhauser enhancement centered at a microwave offset of ω_e - ω_H = 0. The cellulose char also exhibits electrons undergoing thermal mixing effects (TM). While the enhancement curve reveals the types electron-nuclear spin interactions in a material, it is not quantitative and the relative abundance of the different types of nuclei cannot be determined directly from the curve. [16]

• Ni, Qing Zhe; Daviso E; Can TV; Markhasin E; Jawla SK; Swager TM; Temkin RJ; Herzfeld J; Griffin RG (2013). "High Frequency Dynamic Nuclear Polarization". Accounts of Chemical Research. 46 (9): 1933–41. doi:10.1021/ar300348n. PMC 3778063. PMID 23597038.
• Sze, Kong Hung; Wu, Qinglin; Tse, Ho Sum; Zhu, Guang (2011). "Dynamic Nuclear Polarization: New Methodology and Applications". NMR of Proteins and Small Biomolecules. Topics in Current Chemistry. 326. pp. 215–42. doi:10.1007/128_2011_297. ISBN 978-3-642-28916-3. PMID 22057860.
• Miéville, Pascal; Jannin, Sami; Helm, Lothar; Bodenhausen, Geoffrey (2011). "NMR of Insensitive Nuclei Enhanced by Dynamic Nuclear Polarization". CHIMIA International Journal for Chemistry. 65 (4): 260–263. doi:10.2533/chimia.2011.260. PMID 28982406.
• Günther, Ulrich L. (2011). "Dynamic Nuclear Hyperpolarization in Liquids". Modern NMR Methodology. Topics in Current Chemistry. 335. pp. 23–69. doi:10.1007/128_2011_229. ISBN 978-3-642-37990-1. PMID 22025060.
• Atsarkin, V A (2011). "Dynamic nuclear polarization: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow". Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 324 (1): 012003. Bibcode:2011JPhCS.324a2003A. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/324/1/012003.
• Lingwood, Mark D.; Han, Songi (2011). Solution-State Dynamic Nuclear Polarization. Annual Reports on NMR Spectroscopy. 73. p. 83. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097074-5.00003-7. ISBN 978-0-08-097074-5.
• Maly, Thorsten; Debelouchina, Galia T.; Bajaj, Vikram S.; Hu, Kan-Nian; Joo, Chan-Gyu; Mak–Jurkauskas, Melody L.; Sirigiri, Jagadishwar R.; Van Der Wel, Patrick C. A.; et al. (2008). "Dynamic nuclear polarization at high magnetic fields". The Journal of Chemical Physics. 128 (5): 052211. Bibcode:2008JChPh.128e2211M. doi:10.1063/1.2833582. PMC 2770872. PMID 18266416.
• Kemsley, Jyllian (2008). "Sensitizing Nmr". Chemical & Engineering News. 86 (43): 12–15. doi:10.1021/cen-v086n043.p012.
• Barnes, A. B.; De Paëpe, G.; Van Der Wel, P. C. A.; Hu, K.-N.; Joo, C.-G.; Bajaj, V. S.; Mak-Jurkauskas, M. L.; Sirigiri, J. R.; et al. (2008). "High-Field Dynamic Nuclear Polarization for Solid and Solution Biological NMR". Applied Magnetic Resonance. 34 (3–4): 237–263. doi:10.1007/s00723-008-0129-1. PMC 2634864. PMID 19194532.
• Abragam, A; Goldman, M (1978). "Principles of dynamic nuclear polarization". Reports on Progress in Physics. 41 (3): 395. Bibcode:1978RPPh...41..395A. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/41/3/002.
• Goertz, S.T. (2004). "The dynamic nuclear polarization process". Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment. 526 (1–2): 28–42. Bibcode:2004NIMPA.526...28G. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2004.03.147.
• Atsarkin, V A (1978). "Dynamic polarization of nuclei in solid dielectrics". Soviet Physics Uspekhi. 21 (9): 725–745. Bibcode:1978SvPhU..21..725A. doi:10.1070/PU1978v021n09ABEH005678.
• Wind, R.A.; Duijvestijn, M.J.; Van Der Lugt, C.; Manenschijn, A.; Vriend, J. (1985). "Applications of dynamic nuclear polarization in ¹³C NMR in solids". Progress in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy. 17: 33–67. doi:10.1016/0079-6565(85)80005-4.
• Kuhn, Lars T.; et al., eds. (2013). Hyperpolarization methods in NMR spectroscopy. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-39728-8.

• Carson Jeffries, "Dynamic Nuclear Orientation", New York, Interscience Publishers, 1963
• Anatole Abragam and Maurice Goldman, "Nuclear Magnetism: Order and Disorder", New York : Oxford University Press, 1982
• Tom Wenckebach, "Essentials of Dynamic Nuclear Polarization", Spindrift Publications, The Netherlands, 2016

• Dynamic Nuclear Polarization: New Experimental and Methodology Approaches and Applications in Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Medicine, Appl. Magn. Reson., 2008. 34(3-4)
• High field dynamic nuclear polarization - the renaissance, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2010. 12(22)

• The DNP-NMR blog (Link)