the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Design and performance of an oversized-sample 35 GHz EPR resonator with an elevated Q value
Abstract. Continuous wave EPR spectroscopy at 35 GHz is an essential cornerstone in multi-frequency EPR studies and crucial for differentiating multiple species in complex systems due to the improved g tensor resolution compared to lower microwave frequencies. Especially for unstable and highly sensitive paramagnetic centers the reliability of the measurements can be improved by the use of a single sample for EPR experiments at all frequencies. Besides the advantages, the lack of common availability of oversized-sample resonators at 35 GHz often limits scientists to lower frequencies or smaller sample geometries, the latter may be non-trivial for sensitive materials. In this work, we present the design and performance of an oversized-sample 35 GHz EPR resonator with a high loaded Q value up to 3300 well suited for continuous wave EPR and single microwave frequency experiments with low excitation power. The design is driven by electromagnetic field simulations and the microwave characteristics of manufactured prototypes were found in agreement with the predictions. The resonator is based on a cylindrical cavity with a TE011 mode allowing for 3 mm sample access. Design targets met comprise high sensitivity, robustness, ease of manufacturing and maintenance. The resonator is compatible with commercial EPR spectrometers and cryostats, allowing for measurements at temperatures down to at least 4 K. To highlight the general applicability, the resonator was tested on metal centers as well as on organic radicals featuring extremely narrow lines.
- Preprint
(2398 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2141 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 09 Jun 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on mr-2024-8', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 May 2024
reply
This paper describes a Q-band resonator that permits study of a sample large enough (3 mm o.d.) that the same sample can also be studied at lower frequencies (S and X). This is an important contribution.
The authors should compare the special features of their resonator to the commercial large-volume Q-band pulse resonator.
The authors properly point out that the 3 mm sample diameter is a large fraction of wavelength at 35 GHz. One consequence of this is that there will be a phase change in the microwave field in a dielectric body. This is not discussed in the paper. Was that phase change calculated or measured to be negligible for these samples?
The authors helpfully provide the experimental parameters used in data collection, but readers will benefit from explanation of the choices. Some of the choices seem arbitrary. For example, the differences in relaxation times would suggest using higher incident microwave power for DPPH than for N@C60, but the reverse is reported in the paper. Why?
What guided the width of the slots cut in the resonator for penetration of the modulation field? Sidabra et al. JMR 274 115 2017 discussed optimization of the slot size. Was this result used? Was the slot dimension chosen consistent with the design guidelines of Sidabra et al.?
The discussion of the resonator efficiency should be expanded. Why is the efficiency so different for the two samples used in the calibration? A measurement at room temperature would also aid the explanation. One possibility is that the resonator Q was different because of the temperature dependence of the conductivity of copper metal, because the coupling changed with differential expansion as the temperature changed, and because the conductivity of coal lowered the Q relevant to that measurement. The fragmentary information provided in the paper is not helpful except to stimulate questions.
The paper states that a 150 W pulse amplifier was available but that only low power was used in characterizing the resonator. The summary paragraph describes the resonator as for “low power pulse EPR.” Is this a statement that it can be used successfully with low power or that it is only useful for low power? Are there places where arcing would occur if 150 W were used? Other large Q-band resonators have focused on being able to perform DEER experiments with large samples and high-power amplifiers. This paper should clarify the role of this resonator within this common application of Q-band EPR.
The discussion of CW EPR vs. field-swept-echo-detected could be usefully expanded. Field-swept-echo-detected exhibit nuclear modulation that is dependent on time between pulses, and a field-dependence of echo phase memory that results in intensity dependence on field. If anisotropy results in small slopes of the absorption line, the CW derivative spectrum can be near zero where the echo is large. However, if a narrow line can be fully excited in the pulse experiment, exact quantitative agreement between CW and pulse spectra can be demonstrated.
Revisions in response to the above comments will make an important contribution more understandable.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2024-8-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Daniel Klose, 16 May 2024
reply
We thank the Anonymous Referee for giving constructive feedback and recognizing the importance of our work. The comments will certainly help us to improve our manuscript when we address all points in a revised version once all reviewer comments have arrived.
Before we address the other comments in full during revision, we would already like to point out that unfortunately a comparison to a commercial large-volume Q-band EPR resonator is not feasible. First, we do not have such a resonator and the performance measures that we provide for our resonator have not been published for the commercial resonator. Second, the design of the commercial resonator is not published, which prevents calculation of the filling factor. If we had the commercial resonator, we could at least measure the Q value at critical coupling and the conversion factor in analogy to the work we describe here. We would welcome any comment from the community, if someone has already determined these values. We are aware that the commercial resonator, while hard to clean in case of a broken sample tube, does show a good cw EPR performance. Proper comparison of absolute sensitivity would require to measure the same sample(s) with both resonators at the same spectrometer.
We will address all other comments when we upload the revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2024-8-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Daniel Klose, 16 May 2024
reply
Supplement
Data sets
Design 3D CAD data of an oversized-sample 35 GHz EPR resonator with an elevated Q value Jörg Wolfram Anselm Fischer, Julian Stropp, René Tschaggelar, Oliver Oberhänsli, Nicholas Alaniva, Mariko Inoue, Kazushi Mashima, Alexander Benjamin Barnes, Gunnar Jeschke, and Daniel Klose https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11082486
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
140 | 53 | 9 | 202 | 26 | 2 | 1 |
- HTML: 140
- PDF: 53
- XML: 9
- Total: 202
- Supplement: 26
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 1
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1