A multi-nuclear facility dedicated to the analysis of bio-geo-cosmo-mat sci-chemistry samples
The W. M. Keck Solid State NMR Facility, Geophysical Laboratory, on the Broad Branch Rd. Campus, Carnegie Institution for Science. This instrument is a three channel system with considerable versatility. We collaborate far and wide from Geochemistry, Biochemistry, Materials Chemistry, Cosmo Chemistry, Paleontology, ... we are game to collaborate!
INTRODUCTION: Solid State Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy is, in my opinion, one of the most useful tools in geochemistry, yet it is employed in only 4 Earth Science departments out of ~600+ in the US and just a few more geoscientists (in Asia and Europe).
Of course SSNMR remains well represented in chemistry and physics departments around the world- but I would argue that SSNMR facilities should also be in Earth Science departments. Below (and through my research) I will attempt to explain why.
So if, as I claim, Solid State NMR is so useful to Geochemists why is it that so few Geo-departments have SSNMR's and why is Geochemistry as a field so dominated by mass spectrometry and not SSNMR?
I believe two factors are involved:
1) learning to operate and run an NMR facility independently requires,
A) an introduction to Solid State NMR which is obviously rare to geoscientists - catch 22 or endless circle (I thank Pat Hatcher of ODU - my advisor at Penn State - for introducing me to this amazing analytical tool!- Pat learned SSNMR from Gary Maciel- who created "chemagnetics" which is the NMR that we have at GL!!!!).
B) a willingness to learn the physics that govern magnetic resonance, basically the quantum mechanics of angular momentum. Although, you really don't need to know quantum mechanics to run a solid state NMR, if you treat it like a "musical" instrument and know what to do, you can extract beautiful data. It is likely that most people who run NMR's focus on how to run them, rather the underlying physics of how they work. I will say that I encourage anyone doing NMR to try and learn as much as they can the underlying physics.
2) Overcoming a bias about what analytical facilities an Earth Sciences department should have. Departments are skittish about instrumental investment- as I agree they should be.
The funny thing is that setting up a Solid state NMR facility is much less expensive than running a ICP-MS facility with associated clean room/prep lab, let alone a laser ablation interface (well over 1 million $).
A really fine solid state NMR at moderate field (meaning not some crazy high field magnet that biomed uses!) will cost one no more than $ 500 K- and that gets you a very fine NMR, one can go lower- but not too much lower. As a bench mark a decent GC-MS will run you ~ $ 80K.
THE GEOPHYSICAL LABORATORY SS-NMR: Our instrument is a three channel Chemagnetics CMX Infinity 300 installed in 1998 and has been used continuously to augment research projects spanning Astrobiology, Organic Geochemistry, Biogeochemistry, Marine chemistry and paleo-oceanography, molecular paleobotany and paleontology, experimental high temperature and high pressure Geochemistry, cosmochemistry and material science. Pretty much any problem that involves solids!
NMR's require high quality RF and fast electronics- these have not changed since 1998 and our instrument can currently do whatever you want. What we have done is recently has had most of our instrument re-built (at the board level) and tuned by Kevin Goehring - the "mind" behind this amazing instrument. Rebuilt amplifiers, transmitters, receivers, and pre-amps. Basically I personally focus on , cooling fans, power supplies, capacitors and (in the case of the 1-H , 19-F High power amp) vacuum tubes. This amazing machine is currently purring like a happy cat and hungry for interesting samples :)
DETAILS: The Solid State NMR laboratory at the Geophysical Laboratory is well equipped to perform a broad range of experiments, the instrumental details are:
Figure 2 (Right): The 7.5 mm probe is particularly excellent when signal is low and fast MAS is not required. Above we show variable contact time 1H-29Si CPMAS experiments revealing the differential rate of polarization transfer to Si (Q) molecular species with differing numbers of non bridging oxygens (e.g. Cody et al GCA 2004-2005). A short contact times Q2 and Q3 are the most intense at longer contact times Q4 is the most intense peak. The change in cross-polarization dynamics is a complex function of glass composition revealing hidden larger scale structural variation that could not be inferred from the distribution of Qn species alone.
Note: This image was made using MacRMN software written and provided by Phillip Grandinetti
Figure 3 (Right): Variable amplitude 1H-13C Cross Polarization NMR spectra of spruce at three different stages of degradation by the fungal micro-organism Gloephyllum trabeum; a ‘brown rot’ fungus. Note the selective loss of cellulose and hemicellulose indicated by the reduction in intensity of polysaccharide secondary alcohols.
Note: the selective removal of cellulose by fungal organisms is not at all a simple process- in fact is likely that the detailed mechanism(s) remains unknown- and yet! This is likely one of the most significant reactions governing the greatest carbon flux back to the atmosphere - period. The respiration of plant debris back to CO2 by fungal organisms provides one of the biggest fluxes of carbon in the carbon cycle period - and we do not really understand the detailed mechanism. Even less is understood about anaerobic degradation of cellulose- obviously it is not easy- hence the reason why ancient boats are pulled out of the anoxic depths of the black sea. And perhaps the only reason why carbon sequistration in sedimentary basins is possible at all- Coal and Oil Shale.
Begs the question as to why organic preservation only seemed appear in the geologic record (Cambrian forward) after the innovation of polysaccharide biosynthesis.
Figure 4 (Right): 13-C solid state NMR reveals substantial differences in the electronic environments of carbon in cellulose and hemi-cellulose. The shift in frequency of the anomeric carbon (100-105 ppm) is particularly helpful in allowing one to distinguish and quantify the relative distribution of these two important biopolymers in biological materials. 13-C NMR was very useful in a collaboration with Jill Banfield and her group in establishing whether iron mountain bio-films were actually synthesizing cellulose (see Jiao et al 2010) (Proteomics suggested major cellulose synthase activity but was cellulose actually being synthesized?) NMR to the rescue!
13C SSNMR was able to show that disordered cellulose might well be synthesized in these biofilms, but for me this study introduced me to biofilms period- these are super complex systems and I think that NMR will have considerable application here- looking into it!
Actually, it is very cool to compare 13C NMR spectra of pure culture (see below) with a dried biofilm- there are distinct differences.
A SOLID STATE NMR VIEW OF BACTERIA (freeze dried- E. coli). Note that as expected there are many different carbon functional groups from aliphatics at ~ 0 to 40 ppm, C-N (~ 55 ppm) and C-O (~ 75 ppm) then unsaturated carbon (sp2) from 110 up to 180 ppm, clearly represented- really the sum total of biomolecular composition is revealed in a "snap shot".
We can fit the fairly complex total E. coli spectrum (BLACK) with a representative protein (Bovine Serum Albumin- BSA)- in RED and a energy storage biopolymer - glycogen - a polysaccharide. in BLUE.
What we see in this beautiful NMR (13C) spectroscopic snap shot is that E. coli is largely composed of ~ 70 % protein, ~ 10 % lipid (membrane + intermediary metabolites), ~ 10 % glycogen and ~ 5 % RNA + DNA (probably mostly ribosome.)
How cool is that? The cool bit is when you compare this spectrum with that I acquired of bacterial biofilms that "age" naturally (see publications) and are much more rich in polysaccharide (EPS) and lipid
( I suspect cellular debris that is not re-utilized- too expensive- thus biofilms can get "fat" too!) Will show this spectrum in short order...
Figure 5 (Right): The 2.5 mm probe is excellent for providing substantial RF power that aids experiments like the mutiple quantum – single quantum (MQ) MAS experiment. The contour plot shown above is an 17-O MQMAS spectrum of albite glass acquired by Dr. Sung Keun Lee (former GL Fellow and now Assistant professor at the Seoul National University) using our 2.5 mm probe. Clearly defined are the two oxygen environments. NOTE: in the "MAS" dimension one observes the Quadrupolar (MAS) powder patterns that records the symmetry of the electric field gradient around the 17-O, which for Si-O-Si is largely due to bond angle.
This is something that I believe is actually not exploited enough- Like Prof. Sung Keun Lee, I believe that we can use SSNMR to understand some deep Geochemical questions and no one but a few of us are doing this. It just takes time! Saddly NMR is not fast! But it is very powerful!
And we spend the time! A lot of time- some experiments take weeks!
Note: This image was made using MacRMN software written and provided by Phillip Grandinetti
Figure XX: 17-O MQMAS 2-dimensional NMR spectra of NAS Glasses as a function of pressure: My crazy analogy is that these spectra are like looking down on a time-sequence of a blob of ice cream melting on the sidewalk :) But Really! - this what high pressure does to NAS (sodium-aluminum-silicate) melts quenched to glasses a various pressures: 17-O Multiple quantum Magic Angle Spinning (MQMAS) NMR 2D spectra of sodium aluminosilicate glasses synthesized at 1 atm, 60 K atm (6 GPa), and 80 K atm (8 GPa). The horizontal projection is the standard MAS projection, the vertical projection provides the "isotropic" spectra. One observes that from 1 atm to 60 K atm the primary densification mechanism is reduction of Si-O-Si bond angle (the isolated peak on the right). From 60 K atm to 80 K atm Si-O-Si bond angle continues to be reduced and four coordinated Al is partially transformed to six coordinated Al (seen as intensity growing in between Si-O-Si and Si-O-Al), signifying a liquid-liquid phase transition between 6 and 8 GPa. Note that peaks corresponding to Si-O-Al and Si-O•Na are largely unperturbed with pressure- implying no role in the densification mechanism. So the pressure induced "melting" involves Si-O and Al coorindation only- all other species are unaffected - How cool is that ? I trust you understand my analogy- nothing is actually melting-there are only glasses- but you are seeing differential responses to deep compressive strain.
These samples were made by Dr. Sung Keun Lee using one of the three multi anvil presses at GL (lab maintained by colleague Yingwei Fei) and analyzed via NMR by me using the W. M. Keck Solid State NMR facility. (Sung Keun is more than capable of running his own MQMAS experiments, but he realized that my "little field" accentuates the 17-O interaction and is helpful- this is one more example of why high field is not always better- best is to have access to many different field strengths. Depending on what you want to know- what a concept :) Good to have friends with NMR's at different fields!
Choice of magnetic field is a complex issue that Non-NMR people have difficulty with- meaning- higher field (bigger magnets) makes sense for some experiments but not for others.
Note: This image was made using MacRMN software written and provided by Phillip Grandinetti
Figure Final: And by the way ... NMR is a time machine! REALLY- NMR experiments are performed in the time domain and spectra are recovered through Fourier transform to the frequency domain. For 2D experiments we have to acquire in time - time space. The figure above shows raw data in time-time space (time 2 is horizontal, time 1 is vertical) of a typical MQMAS experiment (this one is 27AL MQMAS of kyanite Al2SiO5). Noise is purple and signal is blue to yellow. The MQMAS experiment aims to have the quadrupolar interaction refocus at set times creating a signal (we call an "echo"), the echo signal propagates forward through time-time space as a slowly decaying signal moving from lower left to upper right (obvious signal). But! there is another "echo" that propagates up and left moving backwards in time and intersecting the y-axis approximately 1/5 up (weaker signal). This weaker echo is moving backwards in time and thus the NMR spectrometer is in fact a time machine. I'll leave it to you to puzzle this one out as to how this could be so. I assure you that this does not violate any laws of physics. Clue: A single quantum coherence (what we measure) is a wave and the directionality of time is defined by us! We are, of course, constrained to move in only one direction of time.
So at Carnegie Science we have two types of time machines: 1) Telescopes that our astronomers use to study light from ancient time- going back billions of years and 2) our NMR that generates events that propagate backwards in time- what a great place to work!
Note: This image was made using MacRMN software written and provided by Phillip Grandinetti