Subtitles section Play video
>> All right.
What I want to do today is talk about just various aspects
of these correlation experiments that we've been talking about
and using now, COSY experiments and HMQC and HMBC experiments.
We're not going to become like super experts
on these experiments, but we've got a lot
of concepts floating around.
We've got the concept of inverse detection,
we've got some concepts of digital resolution that I'd
like to bring to bear.
We have various delays.
We've already seen when we were talking
about the depth experiment how important delay parameters are
and I'd like us to get a little bit of a feeling of that.
Down in the spec lab you're using gradient-based experiments
and without getting to be super technical I'd like to talk
about the benefits of that and benefits
on phase cycling and experiment time.
So let's start, and I also want to talk about variants
of experiments because although I've said, you know,
we're going to take this core of experiments
and it's not many experiments, I want to talk about some
of the variants of these experiments so that you can see
as you encounter specific problems what other tools you
can unpack from your toolbox to address those problems.
So, let's start by talking about the COSY experiment.
I'll give you the general pulse sequence here and then talk
about some variations of the experiments.
So in general, your experiments start
with a delay that we'll call D1.
That's a relaxation delay.
Remember we were talking about return
of magnetization to the Z axis?
I said normally your relaxation time, T1 relaxation time,
capital T1 relaxation time, is on the order of a second or two.
So when you pulse, normally it takes a few seconds for most
of your magnetization to return on the Z axis
and that's your DIOF [phonetic] and your FID.
Now when you're doing a normal 1D experiment,
that's not a big issue because you're collecting data
for a few seconds to get the typical digital resolutions
that you get in the 1D experiment.
Your 2D experiments there's an inverse relationship
between the amount of time you're collecting data
in your digital resolution and that's kind
of your uncertainty principle.
That gives you your, you know,
how accurately you can know your peak positions.
In a 2D experiment, you don't generally need super high
digital resolution.
So your acquisition times are typically shorter
like .17 seconds for say a typical COSY experiment.
So you don't want to be banging away every .17 seconds
because none of your magnetization will return
to the Z axis.
So most experiments, even your 1D experiments,
have a little relaxation delay.
So that's generally 1 to 2 seconds.
That's basically allowing your magnetization and that's,
of course, not allowing all your magnetization
to return to the Z axis.
It's allowing basically half of it or, you know,
or to allow 1 eth life so to allow 60%
of your magnetization to return.
All right so your pulse sequence is going to run
through relaxation delay then pulse then you wait
and you wait T1, that's your time, you increment this time
and you increment this time up to 1 over your sweep
with in the F1 dimension.
So we'll call that SW1 and remember we talked
about the 2 dimensional Fourier transform
where you're Fourier transforming with respect
to both the non-real dimension to the incremented dimension,
F1 dimension, and the F2 dimension, so you're going
to get periodicity from this weight just
as we see periodicity in the FID.
So then like most 2D experiments the general gist is pulse wait,
pulse observe sometimes with multiple pulses
but remember that's my general sort of simplified thing,
observe, and that's your T2, and then when you Fourier transform
and you get your 2D spectrum,
this is the F2 axis, this is the F1 axis.
So remember, the real axis,
the real 1 for each FID is the F2 axis
and then this one is coming from your incremented time here.
So you typically increment in usually it's a power of 2
so it's usually like in 256 or 512 or 1024 increments.
So, in other words, when you're collecting a COSY experiment
at minimum you're doing 256 or 512 or 1024 repeats
of this whole process.
Now, the more increments, the more digital resolution
[ Writing on board ]
in F1. So if you have 256 increments
and let's say F1 is 6,000 hertz.
In other words, let's say it's 12 PPM
on a 500 megahertz spectrometer that's 6,000 hertz,
then your digital resolution in F1 is going
to be 6,000 divided by 256.
In other words, your digital resolution is going
to be about 20 hertz.
That's pretty coarse because you think of say a typical multiplet
like a triplet and let's say your coupling constant is 7
hertz, so your multiple is 14 hertz wide.
So basically so that's sort of the bare minimum
on digital resolution because your digital resolution is going
to be on the order of like 20 hertz there.
Now there are various tricks with 0 filling.
So even if you don't, so if you collected 1024 increments,
you'd say, okay, my digital resolution would be 6 hertz.
It would be 6,000 divided by 1024, 6 hertz.
So that's sort of more like a typical peak size.
So some of the tricks that you can use are 0 filling
which adds data points artificially
but doesn't actually add new data, which can tighten
up your digital resolution.
Typically that's being done downstairs so typically you're
at least 0 filling to 1024 to sort
of artificially get your digital resolution
to about 6 hertz in this dimension.
All right I want to talk about, we'll talk about the time
for this experiment in just a second.
I just want to talk about some variations
of the COSY experiment
and so there's a variation called a long range COSY
and long range doesn't mean that you're picking
up long-range couplings or necessarily that you're going
and picking up small, you're picking up through 4 bonds.
Remember I said long-range coupling is typically more
than 3 bonds.
What a long-range COSY means is it picks up the small js better.
Why can't I write today?
I'm a mess here.
[ Writing on board ]
We've already seen this problem in COSY.
COSY is great if you have tall peaks,
it'll pick up any coupling, you know,
heck if you've got methyl singlets
that have invisibly small coupling,
you may get a cross peak over them from a tall methyl singlet,
but if you have a multiplet like this and your js are small
and you're coupling with another multiplet and your js are just
like less than 3 hertz, often it's hard to pick
up a cross peak and you saw that in the COSY
of the hydroxyl prolene, the one that we were talking
about in discussion where you saw that, for example,
your geminal protons you would only get a cross peak off of 1
of them because the other had a small coupling
and you could see the small coupling,
you could see a little splitting, remember this?
You saw a little splitting and yet only one
of those 2 diastereotopic methyls was giving you
a coupling.
So, this is like multiplets with, I hate to put a number
on it, but let's say j is less than or equal to 3.
It's sometimes hard to pick up the cross peak.
So a long-range COSY adds an extra delay, it's a fixed delay
that gives these js better and so the sequence is just
as we saw before it's D1 pulse, D1 is as above, pulse,
T1 so these are just as before,
but now you add one more fixed delay we'll call it D2
and then you pulse and you observe.
What the fixed delay does is it makes the experiment pick
up these small js better.
Now there's a price, you say why don't you use it all the time?
There's a small price that you pay.
Your fixed delay is typically let's say 100
to 400 milliseconds.
Longer is going to be better for picking
up small js but there's caveat.
What's happening during that 100 to 400 milliseconds?
>> Relaxation.
>> Relaxation.
So, you're losing signal intensity
because your magnetization is returning to Z axis
so there's a point of diminishing returns
but this would be an experiment that you would do
if you're saying I'm trying to pick up a coupling,
I'm not seeing it in my COSY, I think it's there, I'm confused
about my connectivity because of this and usually the places
that you're going to see it are places
where you have say a methine and you have bad geometry
to say another methine proton
because if you have a methyl group, a CH3CH,
you'll always have a good coupling.
You'll always have a good coupling with CH3CH
because the methyl is always going to have 1 or 2 protons
that have a decent geometry to give a decent j and a CH2,
these are all going to be okay typically although I guess we
actually saw one in the constrained 5-membered ring
where you didn't get 1 of your cross peaks
and you might have wondered, but when you start to have
like a CH next to a CH2 or next to a CH, you might want
to think about using it.
So, okay, I'll just write out what I said, but big delays lead
to loss of sensitivity.
More signal to noise problems.
There are tons and tons of flavors of COSY and just
like people develop different synthetic methods, you know,
yet another protecting group.
BJ Cory [phonetic] just has a paper
on a new variant that's very similar to TDBMS [phonetic],
but is a better protecting group and it's similar
to TIPS [phonetic] and so you say, okay, here's another one
in the toolbox and when you're starting out it's
like why do I need another tool in the toolbox
when I barely know how to use the tools I have?
So you can kind of file these away in the sense
that you're not going to be necessarily become an expert
in all of the alphabet soup.
[ Writing on board ]
There's a phase sensitive COSY experiment and what's good
about a phase sensitive COSY experiment it's harder to phase
but the cross peaks show splitting.
[ Writing on board ]
So from that experiment you can extract your js.
[ Writing on board ]
So you can imagine if you had some hideously complicated NMR
experiment and you absolutely wanted to measure your j values.
Let's say we've used j values for determining stereochemistry
so your stereochemistry was dependent on it
and you couldn't get your js by another way,
this might be a nice way to get your j values out of it.
Now there's another experiment that's very popular.
It has never been part
of my personal repertoire although now we're starting
to think about using it,
it's called the double quantum filtered COSY, DQF COSY,
it's a very popular experiment.
I just personally don't have a lot
of good things to say about it.
What it tends to do is reduce digital artifacts associated
with singlets.
[ Writing on board ]
So, for example, if you have a big methyl peak
or a big tert butyl peak in a COSY,
sometimes you get this stripe of T1 noise, this stripe it's
like a cruciform pattern off of that peak
and this can reduce some of that.
It can also reduce crowding around the diagonal.
Let's say helps show cross peaks close to the diagonal.
[ Writing on board ]
8 Sometimes if you look at your COSY spectra if you have 2 peaks
that are like a tenth of a part per million apart you'll look
and it's hard to tell if there's a cross peak with them
because the cross peak is barely going
to be away from the diagonal.
There's a variant of the COSY called a COSY 45.
So we've been talking about all of these pulses here.
The pulse doesn't have to be a 90-degree pulse, it doesn't have
to drag all your magnetization down into the X, Y plane.
You can give a pulse that's weaker that only knocks half
of your magnetization down to the X, Y plane.
Remember, knocking all of your magnetization
to the XY plane means equalizing the alpha and beta populations.
Knocking, giving a 45-degree pulse means only putting part
of your magnetization in the X,
Y plane only partially equalizing,
only reducing the difference between alpha and beta states
so you get faster relaxation.
The COSY 45 experiment uses a 45-degree pulse and what's cool
about that is that your shape
of the cross peaks can reflect the sign
of the coupling constants.
[ Writing on board ]
The shape instead of becoming a square it's kind
of an oblong shape and the oblong shape can point either
to the left or to the right depending on the sign
of the coupling constant.
Why might you care about that?
Why would you care about whether you were picking
up a positive coupling or a negative coupling
or telling those apart?
>> It might change the phase.
>> Change the phase but what practical thing in structure?
>> Stereochemistry?
>> Stereochemistry?
What?
>> Geminal.
>> Geminal, exactly.
Remember how I said for all intents
and purposes I said often your geminal js are negative.
Often j2 hh, is negative and j3 hh is positive?
The case that that's useful is remember how we were looking
at all of these spectra
where you have a diastereotopic methylene coupled
to a diastereotopic methylene
and you're getting all these cross peaks?
It's useful to know is this cross peak important?
Is it a vicinal coupling?
It's important for determining connectivity.
Is it a vicinal coupling or geminal coupling?
So this is one little trick that you can do
so you can distinguish j2 hh from j3 hh.
So this is one little trick where you can look and say, oh,
this cross peak is telling me about connectivity,
this is just tell me a geminal.
In a way, you can say it's redundant
with the HMQC experiment because you'll know your geminal
partners from the HMQC experiment.
Not it turns out that Phil Dennison [phonetic] is actually
not doing a cozine 90 [phonetic].
A cozine 90 would be a traditional COSY
where you're pulsing your magnetization
down all into the X, Y plane.
He's giving you a 60-degree pulse
which allows faster cycling because you don't have
as much relaxation that has to occur
and it gives you a slightly cleaner diagonal.
So the COSYs that we're getting
down in the spec lab are actually really nice
which is one of the reasons why I'm not a huge fan
of the DFQ COSY.
Anyway those are some minor variants of COSY experiment.
I want to talk to you about one that really is important
and I think you'll appreciate the benefit of it
since you're all doing the practical component
of the course and you're actually using this technique.
So 2 big advances in NMR that have occurred
in the past couple of decades.
One of the advances was inverse detected experiments;
that's our HMQC and we've talked about and I will talk again
about the faster data collection of that experiment
because you're doing inverse detection
and detecting protons on the F2 axis.
The other big advance was gradient selected experiments.
So the GS COSY or G COSY, you'll see it written both ways,
uses gradients and so it uses pulse field gradients
[ Writing on board ]
and does a couple of things.
The most important practical thing is it eliminates the need
for phase cycling.
[ Writing on board ]
It also gives fewer artifacts
so the spectra tend to be a lot cleaner.
What do I mean by phase cycling?
In a regular 2D experiment, in a regular COSY, you need a minimum
of 4 different pulses to eliminate artifacts.
Remember how I talked about pulsing on the X axis
and driving our magnetization into the X,
Y plane and the Y axis?
In reality you do your experiments
in sets of 4 typically.
You apply a pulse on the X axis,
it puts your magnetization on the Y axis.
You apply a pulse on the Y axis, it puts your magnetization
on the negative X axis.
You apply a pulse
on the negative X axis it puts your magnetization
onto the Y axis.
Anyway you go around and you do basically 4 pulses.
Regular COSY is 4 sets of pulses so in other words X, Y,
negative X, negative Y as a set
and that's called phase cycling to do all of that.
Now let's think about the math
of a minimum COSY experiment with phase cycling.
So, a minimum COSY experiment
with phase cycling we call this NS equals 4.
When you're doing your 2 D experiment,
you've already seen your NS parameter, right?
And the more you do the better the signal to noise ratio
but the longer your time takes.
So remember I said that we're typically doing a minimum
of 256 increments.
So we'll say NS equals 4, 256 increments,
let's say we're doing a D1 of 1 because of 1 second
because you're not just banging away on the thing.
Then let's say you're doing an acquisition time AQ of 0.17.
How did I get that number?
Acquisition time is equal to the number of points
in the time domain divided by the sweep with.
So this is the total number of points
so let's say we do 2048 points total that's going to be real
and imaginary points so I'll say in the time domain.
So when you Fourier transform
that you throw away the imaginary half that's 1024
points in the frequency domain so that's our F2 domain.
So think about this.
Remember I said let's say our sweep with is 6,000 hertz,
let's say 12 PPM out of 500 megahertz spectrometer.
So your digital resolution is going to be 6,000 divided
by 1024 on the F1 axis.
So that's sort of a minimal digital resolution
that you would want.
So you do the math on this and that works
out to an acquisition time of .1 seconds
and then you're also doing that increment up to 1 over the sweep
with so you're incrementing up to 256 increments up to
about 167 microseconds, which is pretty small.
So basically each experiment takes 1 second plus .17 seconds.
So you do the math on this 4 times 256 times 1.17 seconds
and the minimum time is 1198 seconds.
It's actually a little bit more because you've got
up to 167 microsecond increment
but that's very, very, very small.
Okay. So, that ends up working out to 20 minutes.
Now there are 22 of us in the class.
We're all going down to this spectrometer and trying
to collect data so now you say wait a second we're all queued
up here and it's 20 minutes a person plus locking
and shimmying.
It's 30 minutes to collect a 2D spectrum.
Watch what happens.
You get rid of your phase cycling so you go to NC equals 1
and you do a minimal COSY and now it's 5 minutes.
So that is a huge, huge advantage.
That's a huge timesaving and it means
that one can routinely get a spectrum plus the COSY is going
to be cleaner because you'll have fewer digital artifacts.
So it's a really, really nice advantage to the experiment.
So the gradient COSY.
I mean now all
of the experiments we're doing are gradient COSYs.
So what's happening is you're applying,
it's also paired pulses.
You're applying 1 pulse on the Z axis
that makes the magnetic field inhomogeneous on the Z axis.
You are varying it by some number of gauss per centimeter
like 10 gauss per centimeter or 30 gauss per centimeter.
In other words, you pulse and at the bottom
of the NMR tube you feel a stronger magnetic field
than at the top of the NMR tube.
That screws up the magnetic homogeneity but it does
so in a systematic way.
Then partway through the experiment you pulse again
which flips the screwing up of the magnetic homogeneity
so now the top gets a stronger magnetic field than the bottom
and that ends up getting rid of a lot of the artifacts and a lot
of the need for phase cycling.
So most of the gradient experiments require either a
minimum NS of 1 or 2 or in some cases 4, but it means it cuts
down your experimental time a lot
and gives you a lot cleaner spectra.
I guess the other big advantage and I'm not, the advantage
that many of you have taken, enjoyed are the cryaprobes.
So the digital, the noise on the cryaprobe instrument
where the probe is being cooled
to reduce electronic noise, is hugely lower.
The signal to noise ratio in a standard experiment
on that machine is like 4,000 or 5,000 versus like 1,000 or 800
on a typical machine meaning you're getting 5 times the
sensitivity which means you could use 5 times a dilute a
sample or if you were sample limited you could do the
experiment 25 times faster because remember the amount
of data you have to do
for signal averaging goes as a square root.
So, in other words, to get twice the signal to noise you have
to collect 4 times as much as data
so that's another beautiful, beautiful experiment.
All right.
Let me, I want to talk about the experiment that I told you
about before but we didn't do and I want to talk
about the differences between a het core and an HMBC
and then show you some of the real issues that are involved.
So the het core experiment is the older experiment.
Both of them, both the het core
and the HMQC are heteronuclear correlation experiments.
The het core is the older experiment.
It's the carbon detected experiment.
So on your proton channel, you're going to start with D1,
which is your same relaxation delay
because you're always going
to be repeating these experiments pulsing
and pulsing and pulsing.
You're going to hit with a 90-degree pulse.
You're then going to wait your time increment
so it's T1 divided by 2,
and so at that point remember we're incrementing this.
This is just like the COSY.
This is going to be the time that's going
to give you your resolution, your sweep with,
you're incrementing it up to 1 over your sweep
with in the F1 dimension on the experiment.
Then halfway through, so at this point after we've waited,
you're going to start your carbon channel up
and you're going to apply 180 degree pulse to the carbon.
You're then going to have your incremented time again
so collectively between these two you're incrementing to 1
over the sweep with in the H1 dimension,
in the proton dimension.
Now you have a delay.
Okay, this delay is important.
So, this delay is to, so this is D2 and you're going
to choose the delay to be 1 over 2 over your, pardon me, J1 CH.
All right.
What's the issue here?
>> It's carbon detection.
>> What? It's carbon detection but what's the problem here?
Same problem we talked about in [inaudible].
>> Hybridization.
>> Hybridization and specifically you have
to choose an average j
[ Writing on board ]
So, for example, let's say EG I'll say 145 hertz.
Because an SP2 hybrid J1CH is on the order of 160 hertz
and SP3 hybrid J1CH is on the order of 125 hertz
and the odd man out is?
SP which is like 250 hertz or anything with any sort
of really weird geometry.
So in all of these experiments, you're making some compromises
and when the experiment doesn't work quite the way you might
have figured, it's often that.
If you noticed on that 5-page sheet ,the het core or HMQC,
I don't remember which it was I think it was an HMQC experiment,
for that E9 compound
on the 5-page sheet remember you were doing a COSY
and a het core on it?
The alkine didn't come through properly
and the reason the alkine didn't come
through properly is 1 size does not fit all.
Okay. So, after your D2, you apply a 90-degree proton pulse
and you apply a 90-degree carbon pulse.
Then you apply a D3, you wait D3.
D3 is just another delay.
It's just one-third of J1CH.
Then you turn on your broadband decouple
and concurrently you observe.
[ Writing on board ]
So, because you're observing in carbon, your real dimension,
your F2 dimension is C13, and your F1 dimension is H1.
Also because you're observing in this dimension you can
at very little expense have high digital resolution
in this dimension.
Point is you can have very high digital resolution
in the carbon dimension and that's beautiful
because carbon is the one
where your peaks virtually never overlap unless you have symmetry
because in a typical carbon experiment even if your peaks,
I think you've already seen this on the homework problems
and you'll see this on others,
even if your peaks are just a couple of hundredths
of a PPM apart, you typically can see 2 distinct
C13 resonances.
The C13 resonances are just a couple of hertz wide,
your C13 is about 100 hertz per PPM or 125 hertz per PPM
at a 500 megahertz spectrometer,
which is running at 125 for carbon.
So your peaks even 100th of a PPM apart you can typically,
or 2/100th of a PPM apart, you can see resolved peaks,
which is great because there's no guess work.
Now you contrast this experiment with the HMQC experiment.
[ Pause ]
And the big difference is the HMQC it's like het core
but it's inverse detection.
The practical matter is inverse detection
because you get advantage of the bigger magnetogyric ratio
of protons, the bigger magnetic vector of protons
and the bigger rate of procession of protons
over carbon you end up with the magnetogyric ratio translates
to a bigger Boltzmann distribution so you end
up with a factor of 4 roughly on the Boltzmann distribution,
a factor of 4 on the size of your magnetic vector
and a factor of 4 on your procession rate that translates
to voltage in the detector coil
and the result is you get 64 times greater sensitivity.
[ Writing on board ]
In other words, I can get an HMQC spectrum
on a milligram sample in the same time
that I would need a 64- milligram sample for het core.
So the disadvantage is low sensitivity
or to put it another way if I had the same sample I could
in theory if data acquisition wasn't an issue I could do it
like 400 times less time here.
In practice, you still have to do your phase cycling
and whatever number of increments.
Okay. Let's look at the, so I'll say let me actually put this
into concrete numbers.
I'll say poor sensitivity leads to hours.
[ Writing on board ]
How long did it take to collect your HMQC on strychnine?
What?
>> Twenty minutes.
>> Twenty minutes, okay.
So in vision for the strychnine sample because you were limited
by number of increments and so forth
on the strychnine sample not by the amount of sample,
but imagine that same experiment being an overnight run literally
8 hours.
So basically to do your HMQC experiment,
to do your het core experiment, you would have
to be babysitting the spectrometer
or planning overnight whereas here it's like, all right,
20 minutes it's a pain in the neck but it's not a big pain.
All right.
Let's look at the pulse sequences here.
So the basic het core experiment, again,
you start with your D1 delay, you apply a 90-degree pulse,
you'll have your D2 delay just like you had in the other one.
Now you start up your carbon
and your basic het core you do a 90-degree pulse in carbon.
We wait our T1 over 2, we apply 180-degree pulse in proton,
we wait out T1 over 2, the incremented weight.
We apply a 90-degree pulse in carbon and the basis het core,
this is not the one you're doing.
At this point you observe and you're observing in the proton,
you're observing at your 500 megahertz not
at your 125 megahertz.
So you've transferred your magnetization to the protons.
What can you tell me about this basic experiment?
What don't you do in this experiment?
What aren't we doing?
>> Decoupling.
>> Decoupling.
So what does this experiment give you?
>> Coupling.
>> This gives you coupling which means all
of your peaks are vampire bites.
So, the basic experiment is no C3 decoupling
and so you get J1CH in other words you get your vampire
peaks here.
The reason that it's harder, so this is the basic experiment.
We do it with decoupling, but the reason it's harder
to decouple on carbon on proton you're only hitting a band
that's 12 PPM wide when you decouple.
You're only eradiating 6,000 hertz or even less than that
because typically you don't have coupled protons
out at 10 parts per million, 11 parts per million,
but when you're doing carbon even though your carbon spectrum
may be collected at 125 megahertz
if you've got a 200 lower frequency
if you've got a 200 PPM range that's 25,000 hertz.
In other words, you have to apply radio frequency radiation
that spans 25,000 hertz instead of 5,000 or 6,000 hertz.
You put too much energy
in you're basically microwaving your sample.
In other words, you're literally heating
up your sample and cooking it.
So it's a more demanding experiment.
So, the one that gives you the couplings, the vampire bites,
is actually the simpler experiment.
Okay, so for our experiment all the delays here our D2 is
the same.
Okay, so what is our spectrum look like?
Well, because it's inverse detected now your F1 dimension
is H1, your F2 dimension is C13.
This is, of course, what you're used to seeing.
So the good side is it's faster, there's less sample.
[ Writing on board ]
You can do it in 20 minutes.
What's the downside?
>> I have a question.
You have C13 on the top here.
>> That's because I'm not paying attention here.
Thank you.
Yeah, so the real dimension, the direct dimension.
So they call the F2 is the direct dimension.
[ Writing on board ]
That's the one you're getting off of each FID
and the F1 is the indirect dimension;
that's the one you're getting from the periodicity of the FIDs
as you're incrementing T1.
All right so the downside of this experiment?
>> Coupling?
>> Coupling, but okay, so this one is a very,
so there's a variant with C13 decoupling.
Okay. And there is a variant with C13 decoupling
and there are variants with pulse field gradients
which generally give a cleaner spectrum.
So, okay so that can be taken care of.
So you don't need to get vampire bites.
What's the disadvantage?
[ Pause ]
[ Inaudible response ]
It deals with the fact you're doing an inverse.
[ Inaudible response ]
Yeah, and that's it.
The killer is the digital resolution in the C13.
[ Writing on board ]
So, let's come back and say, okay,
let's say we do 1024 increments or we do 0 filling
to bring our 256 if we're in a rush to 1024 or 512 up to 1024.
So the killer is even if you have 1024 increments,
so I'll say 1024 increments let's imagine for a moment
that say we cover 200 PPM and so we're talking about, you know,
200 PPM divided by 5, whoops, I guess I'm doing 1024,
and we're still talking
about just what is it .2 PPM digital resolution.
So we said in our carbon NMR we can detect peaks that are 100th
or maybe 200ths of a PPM apart because the peaks are hertz are
so wide and so you can detect them
when they're just touching each other and
yet pretty much no matter what you do
on this experiment you just can't bring
that digital resolution up nearly as high as the het core.
It's 1 order of magnitude [inaudible] digital resolution.
You can play games to make it a little better
but it's still going to be lower,
which means there will be times when you're looking
and saying damn it, I can't tell whether it's carbon 8
or carbon 9 that's associated with this proton and that's sort
of the nature of the beast.
All right last thing I want to talk about I think is HMBC.
[ Writing on board ]
So HMBC in terms of the pulse sequence, so you know HMBC now.
We've talked about it, we've used it,
you've learned what it's useful for.
It's useful to pick up J2CH and J3CH.
It's useful for putting the pieces together.
[ Writing on board ]
And the pulse sequence is very similar to the HMQC
but your delays are related to 1 over your JCH so your delays
[ Writing on board ]
for one over your JCH.
So now if you think about it remember we said typically
what's our J2CH, our J3CH,
let's say a typical value is let's say approximately
10 hertz.
So now you're talking about putting in delays that are
like 1 over 2 JCH so instead of putting in delays that are
on the order of microseconds you're putting in delays
that are on the order of a 20th of a second to pick up your Js
and you're choosing you delays to pick
up the J as best as possible.
Now, remember I said you won't always see your cross peaks.
So I'll say a caveat, absence
of a cross peak doesn't necessarily mean an absence
of connectivity.
[ Writing on board ]
Because your Js can be very small.
[ Writing on board ]
So let's say your J is very small,
let's say you've got a really bad dihedral angle close
to 90 degrees and you're trying to pick up a J3CH
and you just can't it up.
So you say, okay, I'll make my delay longer, right?
If I decide I'll optimize for 1 hertz,
I'll put in a delay of a half a second.
What happens if you put in a delay of half a second?
[ Inaudible response ]
You're optimizing for 1 hertz coupling
but what happens to your spectrum?
[ Inaudible response ]
You get more relaxation so you basically die on relaxation.
Now it turns out the values down in the spec lab are pretty good,
you know, it's optimized for 10 hertz and it's sort of a point
of diminishing returns.
So, anyway the other thing is remember how we see those
vampire bites because you are sometimes picking up your J1CH?
In this experiment, you're not typically doing C13 decoupling;
it's just too complicated an experiment.
So you basically are deliberately not doing the
C13 decoupling.
I think that pretty much covers all the sort of aspects
of different types of experiments
and different pulse sequenced that I wanted
to touch on for today.
Good luck in your mech exam. ------------------------------f51ee0235c1d--
