4.6 Article

Coherent pump pulses in Double Electron Electron Resonance spectroscopy

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 18, 期 27, 页码 18470-18485

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6cp03555h

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01EY010329]
  2. NSF [CHE-1452967]
  3. American Heart Association [14CSA20380095]
  4. Division Of Chemistry
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1452967] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recent introduction of shaped pulses to Double Electron Electron Resonance (DEER) spectroscopy has led to significant enhancements in sensitivity through increased excitation bandwidths and improved control over spin dynamics. The application of DEER has so far relied on the presence of an incoherent pump channel to average out most undesired coherent effects of the pump pulse(s) on the observer spins. However, in fully coherent EPR spectrometers that are increasingly used to generate shaped pulses, the presence of coherent pump pulses means that these effects need to be explicitly considered. In this paper, we examine the effects of coherent rectangular and sech/tanh pump pulses in DEER experiments with up to three pump pulses. We show that, even in the absence of significant overlap of the observer and pump pulse excitation bandwidths, coherence transfer pathways involving both types of pulses generate spin echoes of considerable intensity. These echoes introduce artefacts, which, if not identified and removed, can easily lead to misinterpretation. We demonstrate that the observed echoes can be quantitatively modelled using a simple spin quantum dynamics approach that includes instrumental transfer functions. Based on an analysis of the echo crossing artefacts, we propose efficient phase cycling schemes for their suppression. This enables the use of advanced DEER experiments, characterized by high sensitivity and increased accuracy for long-distance measurements, on novel fully coherent EPR spectrometers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据