These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of different methods for calculating the paramagnetic relaxation enhancement of nuclear spins as a function of the magnetic field.
    Author: Belorizky E, Fries PH, Helm L, Kowalewski J, Kruk D, Sharp RR, Westlund PO.
    Journal: J Chem Phys; 2008 Feb 07; 128(5):052315. PubMed ID: 18266432.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]