Picture of wind turbine against blue sky

Open Access research with a real impact...

The Strathprints institutional repository is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde research outputs.

The Energy Systems Research Unit (ESRU) within Strathclyde's Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering is producing Open Access research that can help society deploy and optimise renewable energy systems, such as wind turbine technology.

Explore wind turbine research in Strathprints

Explore all of Strathclyde's Open Access research content

Quantitative analysis of low-field NMR signals in the time domain

Nordon, A. and Gemperline, P.J. and McGill, C.A. and Littlejohn, D. (2001) Quantitative analysis of low-field NMR signals in the time domain. Analytical Chemistry, 73 (17). pp. 4286-4294. ISSN 0003-2700

Full text not available in this repository. (Request a copy from the Strathclyde author)

Abstract

Two novel methods are described for direct quantitative analysis of NMR free induction decay (FID) signals. The methods use adaptations of the generalized rank annihilation method (GRAM) and the direct exponential curve resolution algorithm (DECRA). With FID-GRAM, the Hankel matrix of the sample signal is compared with that of a reference mixture to obtain quantitative data about the components. With FID-DECRA, a single-sample FID matrix is split into two matrices, allowing quantitative recovery of decay constants and the individual signals in the FID. Inaccurate results were obtained with FID-GRAM when there were differences between the frequency or transverse relaxation time of signals for the reference and test samples. This problem does not arise with FID-DECRA, because comparison with a reference signal is unnecessary. Application of FID-DECRA to 19F NMR data, which contained overlapping signals from three components, gave concentrations comparable to those derived from partial least squares (PLS) analysis of the Fourier transformed spectra. However, the main advantage of FID-DECRA was that accurate (<5% error) and precise (2.3% RSD) results were obtained using only one calibration sample, whereas with PLS, a training set of 10 standard mixtures was used to give comparable accuracy and precision.