the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Spin prepolarization with a compact superconducting magnet
Abstract. Compact benchtop NMR systems provide excellent and affordable access to good-quality NMR spectroscopy. Nevertheless, such systems are limited by low polarization levels, resulting in low signal-to-noise ratios compared to those of high-field systems. We show here that polarization levels can be significantly improved by using a medium-homogeneity high-field magnet as a spin prepolarizer. For this type of brute-force hyperpolarization we employ a cryogen-free 5 T superconducting magnet. Because such systems typically lack shielding and thus have noticeable stray fields, samples can be transferred adiabatically from the prepolarizer to the bore of a commercial benchtop NMR system. By adjusting the physical separation between the two magnets, and hence ensuring a sufficiently strong stray field during sample transfer, we report a 1H polarization enhancement of up to a factor of 2.62 as a first demonstration of the utility. By employing 2G-HTS magnets, higher magnetic fields would become possible while minimizing the size and stray field of the magnet, so that the polarization levels can be further increased in a foreseeable future with moderate effort. In a follow-up paper, we aim to explore some of the advantages of the prepolarization approach.
Competing interests: Jan G. Korvink is a shareholder of Voxalytic GmbH, a company that develops and supplies NMR hardware. The other authors declare no competing interests. At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Magnetic Resonance.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(5286 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 03 Sep 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on mr-2025-10', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Aug 2025
reply
This work describes a method for thermal polarization using an additional high-field magnet positioned close to the commercial benchtop NMR system. Several comments are below. In general, the novelty of this work is limited.
Comments:
Line 43: As long as the external magnetic field is parallel to the magnetization, also non-adiabatic transfer is possible
Line 49: the lowest field during transfer is given as 10mT, was this measured or estimated based on known stray field maps?
Line 50 and line 80: how is enhancement defined? Is it M(at 5T)/M(1.4T)? Please clarify.
Fig 1: why is polarization about 3 at large t? How is polarization defined or normalized?
Table 4: for the sanples without CuSO4 (first three rows) linewidth at 3, 2 and reference varies by about a factor of 2. With CuSO4 variation increases to a factor of 4 to 5. Why?
Potential effects of motion and flow within the sample due to the rapid displacement should be discussed.
Fig 6: there is no reference in the text to fig 6. Also, not many details are given for the 5T magnet, or a reference
Minor comments:
Line 43: what is “wo that fast” ?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-10-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jan Gerrit Korvink, 19 Aug 2025
reply
Dear Editor,
we have included our replies to RC1 in an uploaded PDF document. All suggestions will be implemented in the revision as requested.
Kind regards, Jan Korvink
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jan Gerrit Korvink, 19 Aug 2025
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on mr-2025-10', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Aug 2025
reply
The authors have clearly defined their project and they report simple but well conceived tests of their hypothesis. The samples they chose illustrate fairly the potential advantages as well as the limitations of the brute force prepolarization they envision. The results are not much of a surprise as the "zero crossing" effect has been observed for many types of prepolarization experiment.
The authors could expand on the reason that better enhancement was achieved at 2 m. The caption for Table 2 states that enhancement is better for 2 m than 3 m because of the higher field and its "better T1". This is probably true, but as this is the main result of the paper, it would be helpful to expand on the significance and maybe give a reference for T1 ~ Bo^1/3.
Many readers may ask: why stop at prepolarizer? Why not just make an HTS NMR magnet? I am hopeful that NMR-quality magnets can be made from HTS materials. However, I admit that there are issues with the tape format and resulting eddy currents that are a challenge. The paper would be stronger if these issues were mentioned and referenced.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/mr-2025-10-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jan Gerrit Korvink, 19 Aug 2025
reply
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jan Gerrit Korvink, 19 Aug 2025
reply
-
EC1: 'Comment on mr-2025-10', Alexandra Yurkovskaya, 21 Aug 2025
reply
File is attached
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
129 | 46 | 13 | 188 | 3 | 6 |
- HTML: 129
- PDF: 46
- XML: 13
- Total: 188
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1