Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparison of different methods for calculating the paramagnetic relaxation enhancement of nuclear spins as a function of the magnetic field
Show others and affiliations
2008 (English)In: Journal of Chemical Physics, ISSN 0021-9606, E-ISSN 1089-7690, Vol. 128, no 5, article id 052315Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The enhancement of the spin-lattice relaxation rate for nuclear spins in a ligand bound to a paramagnetic metal ion [known as the paramagnetic relaxation enhancement (PRE)] arises primarily through the dipole-dipole (DD) interaction between the nuclear spins and the electron spins. In solution, the DD interaction is modulated mostly by reorientation of the nuclear spin-electron spin axis and by electron spin relaxation. Calculations of the PRE are in general complicated, mainly because the electron spin interacts so strongly with the other degrees of freedom that its relaxation cannot be described by second-order perturbation theory or the Redfield theory. Three approaches to resolve this problem exist in the literature: The so-called slow-motion theory, originating from Swedish groups [Benetis et al., Mol. Phys. 48, 329 (1983); Kowalewski et al., Adv. Inorg. Chem. 57, (2005); Larsson et al., J. Chem. Phys. 101, 1116 (1994); T. Nilsson et al., J. Magn. Reson. 154, 269 (2002)] and two different methods based on simulations of the dynamics of electron spin in time domain, developed in Grenoble [Fries and Belorizky, J. Chem. Phys. 126, 204503 (2007); Rast et al., ibid. 115, 7554 (2001)] and Ann Arbor [Abernathy and Sharp, J. Chem. Phys. 106, 9032 (1997); Schaefle and Sharp, ibid. 121, 5387 (2004); Schaefle and Sharp, J. Magn. Reson. 176, 160 (2005)], respectively. In this paper, we report a numerical comparison of the three methods for a large variety of parameter sets, meant to correspond to large and small complexes of gadolinium(III) and of nickel(II). It is found that the agreement between the Swedish and the Grenoble approaches is very good for practically all parameter sets, while the predictions of the Ann Arbor model are similar in a number of the calculations but deviate significantly in others, reflecting in part differences in the treatment of electron spin relaxation. The origins of the discrepancies are discussed briefly.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
American Institute of Physics (AIP), 2008. Vol. 128, no 5, article id 052315
National Category
Condensed Matter Physics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-8642DOI: 10.1063/1.2833957ISI: 000253125700029PubMedID: 18266432OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-8642DiVA, id: diva2:148313
Available from: 2008-06-02 Created: 2008-06-02 Last updated: 2019-08-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Westlund, Per-Olof
By organisation
Department of Chemistry
In the same journal
Journal of Chemical Physics
Condensed Matter Physics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 194 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf