Table Of ContentDynamic nuclear polarization and spin-diffusion in non-conducting solids
Chandrasekhar Ramanathan∗
Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
(Dated: February 2, 2008)
Therehasbeenmuchrenewedinterestindynamicnuclearpolarization(DNP),particularlyinthe
contextof solid statebiomolecular NMRandmorerecentlydissolution DNPtechniquesforliquids.
8 Thispaperreviewstheroleofspindiffusioninpolarizing nuclearspinsanddiscussestheroleofthe
0 spin diffusion barrier, before going on todiscuss some recent results.
0
2 PACSnumbers:
n
a
Microwave irradiation of a coupled electron-nuclear lar interactions, the electron exchange interaction and
J
spin system can facilitate a transfer of polarization from theelectron-nuclearhyperfineinteraction(includingboth
4
the electron to the nuclear spin. In dielectric materials the Fermicontactandthe electron-nucleardipolar inter-
1
dynamicnuclearpolarization(DNP)typicallyoccursvia actions). During the DNP process we could add both
] the solideffect,thermal mixing or the crosseffect1,2,3. In microwave and RF fields to irradiate the electronic and
r
these systems the electron spins are localized and the nuclear spins as needed. The challenge of dealing with
e
h non-equilibrium polarization of the bulk nuclei is gen- this full Hamiltonian in a systematic quantum mechani-
t erated via a two-stage process: a polarization exchange cal formalismunderlies the gaps in our knowledge of the
o
local to the defect; and spin transport to distribute the fullDNPprocess. Traditionallyresearchershaveadopted
.
at polarization throughout the sample. Here the DNP pro- acomposite quantum-classicalapproachinwhichaniso-
m cess is essentially the inverse of the standard T relax- lated defect spin coupled to one or two nuclear spins is
1
ation mechanism in dielectric solids4. treated quantum-mechanically, and a classical approach
-
d While much attention is paid to improving the lo- is used to deal with the transport of the polarization ei-
n cal polarization transfer efficiency from the electron to ther to or away from the defect.
o
the neighboring nuclear spins, usually by incorporating
c
the appropriate electron spins in the sample, the rate-
[
limiting step in efficiently polarizing bulk samples is fre- The Bloembergen model
1 quently the spin transport from the defect sites to the
v
bulk. As we attempt to use DNP to enhance nuclear DNP and spin-lattice relaxation are very similar pro-
0
magnetization in an ever-increasing number of systems, cesses in these systems. Waller7 provided the first theo-
7
1 it is important to understand the many-spin dynamics retical treatment of nuclear magnetic relaxation in ionic
2 that underly the process. As we improve our system crystals, in which the spin-spin interactions between nu-
. model for describing DNP dynamics, we will eventually clei were modulated by lattice vibrations. However ob-
1
0 be able toincorporaterecentdevelopmentsinthe theory servedrelaxationtimesweremuchshorterthanthosecal-
8 and practice of optimal control of quantum systems to culated with this model. In 1949 Bloembergen4 postu-
0 further improve our techniques5,6. latedthatNMRrelaxationinthesenon-conductingsolids
: Thepurposeofthispaperistoclarifyourunderstand- was mediated by nuclear spin diffusion from the bulk to
v
i ingofthespindynamicsinlightofrecentexperimentsin the sites of paramagnetic impurities, and that the T1
X our laboratory. The paper begins with a description of were significantly shortened at increased doping densi-
r the Bloembergenmodel andexaminesthe different steps tites.
a
of the transport processes involved in dynamic nuclear Thedynamicsofthenuclearpolarization(p)canthere-
polarization, before concluding with a review of recent fore be described by a diffusion equation in the contin-
experimental results. uum limit,
Inastrongmagneticfield,theHamiltonianofanuclear
spin system, doped with electron spins is given by − ∂p =D∇2p+2Wp+ C (p−p ) (2)
∂t r6 0
H =Hn +He +Hn +He +He +H (1)
tot Z Z D D E HF where D is the diffusion coeffient, W ≈ γ2B2T is the
1 2
corresponding to the nuclear and electron Zeeman inter- rate at which the applied RF drives nuclear spin transi-
actions, the nuclear-nuclear and electron-electron dipo- tions, and C/r6 describes the rate at which the nuclear
spinsatadistancerfromtheimpurityarerelaxed. Here,
a single defect spin is surrounded by a large number of
nuclei, in the presence of an applied RF field. The equa-
∗Electronicaddress: [email protected] tion can be summed over all the defect spins to describe
2
bulk nuclear spin polarizations following DNP. Leifson
andJeffries14 andKhutsishvili15modifiedBloembergen’s
(cid:78)(cid:85)(cid:67)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:65)(cid:82)(cid:83)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:78)(cid:83)(cid:73)(cid:78)(cid:66)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:75)
equation to incorporate the effect of driving the elec-
tron spin transitions. In the presence of both RF and
(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:67)(cid:84)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:78)(cid:83)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:78) microwave irradiation of the nuclear and electron spins
respectively Khutsishvili16 obtained the following differ-
ential equation for the bulk nuclear spin magnetization
(M)
(cid:83)(cid:80)(cid:73)(cid:78)(cid:68)(cid:73)(cid:70)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:73)(cid:79)(cid:78)(cid:66)(cid:65)(cid:82)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:69)(cid:82)
∂M M −M (M −M )
= 0 +D∇2M −C 0
∂t T |r−r |6
d Xm m
M ∓ηM
0
FIG. 1: Schematic illustration of the spin diffusion barrier −2WM −Γ± (4)
|r−r |6
around the electron spin. Nuclear spin diffusion within the Xm m
barrier is suppressed due to the large difference in Zeeman
energies between the spins. (from Ref.(8)) where η = γe/γn is the DNP enhancement factor, Td
is the nuclear relaxation rate due to extraneous impuri-
ties that do not contribute to DNP, and Γ± is the DNP
the dynamics of the entire sample. driving rate and the signindicates whichESR transition
The spin diffusion process is mediated by energy- was being irradiated. This result does not take into ac-
conserving flip-flop transitions that take place during countelectron-electroncouplings andis thus validin the
evolution under the dipolar Hamiltonian. In a strong limit of a low concentration of paramagnetic impurities.
external magnetic field, the secular dipolar Hamiltonian The boundary conditions for this macroscopic transport
can be written as equationaredetermined by the physics in the vicinity of
the electron spin, and it is useful to explore this region
1
HD =Xi,j dij(cid:18)2IziIzj − 2(cid:16)I+i I−j +I−i I+j(cid:17)(cid:19) (3) in more detail.
where dij = γ2¯h2(1−3cos2θij)/2ri3j, rij is the distance The spin diffusion barrier
between spins i and j, and θ is the angle between the
ij
internuclearvectorandtheexternalmagneticfield. How-
Khutsishvili provided a first formal theory of the spin
ever, the nuclear spins in an inner core around the im-
diffusion barrier17. He defined the barrier to be the dis-
purity experience a large local field gradient due to the
tance d from the paramagnetic impurity at which the
impurity spin, and as a consequence have significantly
difference of the hyperfine-shifted Zeeman frequencies of
different effective Zeeman energies (Figure 1). This en-
two neighboring nuclei is equal to the nuclear resonance
ergydifferencesuppressestheflip-floptermsintheabove
linewidth (dipolar broadened). Blumberg18 defined the
equation, creating a “spin-diffusion barrier” around the
barriertobethedistanceatwhichthefieldduetotheion
impurity, within which the polarization is “frozen”, and
equals the local dipolar field which results in a slightly
the diffusion coeffient is zero.
largerdistanceforthebarrier. Thedescriptionswerefor-
Thusinthismodel,thenuclearspinsinsidethebarrier
malizedfurther byRorschach19 andKhutsishvili20 yield-
were relaxed directly by the impurity electron spin, and
ing
were isolated from the nuclear spins in the bulk. At the
edge of the barrier, spins are in contact with both the
impurity spin as well as the neighboring nuclear spins 2Sγ α
e
d≈ a (5)
while the bulk nuclear spins do not experience the field
(cid:18) γ (cid:19)
n
of the impurity spin directly.
if τ >Tn or S¯hγ B /kT >1, and
2 e 0
Relaxation and DNP γ S¯hγ B α
e e 0
d≈ 2S B a (6)
(cid:20) γ (cid:18) kT (cid:19)(cid:21)
n
The process of microwave irradiation of an electron
spincoupledtoanuclearspinhasbeenwelldescribed1,9, ifτ <TnorS¯hγ B /kT <1,whereaistheinter-nuclear
2 e 0
and detailed quantum-mechanical treatments of the iso- distance,S istheelectronspin,B(·)istheBrillouinfunc-
latedtwo spin systemare alsoavailable10,11,12,13. As the tion and α = 1/4 for Khutsishvili’s original definition of
focus of this paper is on the transport processes, we will the barrier and α = 1/3 for the Blumberg definition.
not discuss this aspect of DNP further. Hereτ isthecorrelationtimeoftheS componentofthe
z
It was recognized early on that the relaxation process electronspin. FordilutespinsitcorrespondstoTe,while
1
described above was essentially the same physical model for dipolar- or exchange-coupled electron spins it corre-
that was needed to describe the development of large sponds to Te. If the electron spin is fluctuating rapidly
2
3
on the timescale of the nuclear T , it is only the mean fluoride they observedthat only the first shell of nuclear
2
thermalpolarizationthatneedstobetakenintoaccount. spins was isolated from the bulk30.
The smaller barrier at lower electron polarization makes
it easier to achieve higher DNP enhancments. However,
if the goal is to achieve large nuclear spin polarizations Transport through the spin diffusion barrier
it is necessary to start with a highly polarized electron
spin system which results in a large spin diffusion bar- The discrepancy arises from the assumption that spin
rier. It should be noted however that these classically diffusion is completely quenched within the barrier. Po-
defined models are defined in the continuum limit and larizationtransportwithinthebarrierwouldre-introduce
assume no anisotropyof the spindiffusion barrier. If the a measure of thermal contact between these nuclei and
barrierisdefinedbyelectron-nucleardipolarinteractions, the bulk. However, as noted by Bloembergen, transport
the angular dependence will have the same (1−3cos2θ) throughthe spin diffusionbarrierdoes notconserveZee-
dependence with respect to the external field. man energy. Thus it is necessary for this additional en-
Khutsishvili21 and de Gennes22 introduced the pseu- ergy to be provided by another energy reservoir.
dopotential radius b, also called the scattering parame- Horvitz31 suggested that the fluctuating fields of the
ter. Thisdistancecharacterizesthecompetitionbetween electronspin itself could facilitate transportthrough the
direct relaxation due to the paramagnetic impurity and barrier. The electron spin-phonon coupling gives rise to
spindiffusion. Ifthedistancebetweenimpuritiesislarger a fluctuating electron spin, which has components at all
than b the T relaxation (and DNP) is diffusion-limited, frequencies,includingatthemismatchofthenuclearZee-
1
whileifthe distancebetweenimpurites issmallerthanb, manenergies. AslongastheT1oftheelectronsisnottoo
spin diffusion is relatively unimportant in T and DNP. long, this can facilitate transportthrough the spin diffu-
1
If d < b then the relaxation is limited by the diffusion sionbarrier. Wolfe experimentallyobservedthiseffectin
of the magnetization to the sites of the impurities, while both Yb-doped YES and CaF228,29,30. Wolfe29 also ob-
if d > b polarization diffuses to the site of the impurity servedthattheelectronspindipolarcouplingscanfacili-
fasterthantheparamagneticimpuritycantransmititto tatetransportthroughthebarrier. Inhisexperimentshe
the lattice. showedthatthe effective spindiffusionbarrierdecreased
Using the definition given by Blumberg (α = 1/3), as the concentration of impurities increased.
Goldman23 estimated the radius of the spin diffusion Goldman23 suggested that the nuclear dipolar reser-
barrier in paradibromobenzene to be 17 ˚A. His mea- voir could make up the energy mismatch. In a slightly
surements suggested a steep decrease of the diffusion differentcontextRedfieldandYu32 consideredspindiffu-
coefficient at the spin diffusion barrier. Schmugge and sioninamacroscopicallyinhomogeneousfield,andnoted
Jeffries24 estimated the size of the barrier in Nd-doped that this results in a transfer of energy between the nu-
Lanthanum Magnesium Nitrate (LaMN) to be 16 ˚A, clear spin Zeeman and dipolar reservoirs. Genack and
based on the same model. Redfield33 observed the coupling of nuclear spin Zee-
man and dipolar energy reservoirs in superconducting
However, experiments by a number of other authors
vanadium. They derived a set of coupled differential
suggested that the effective barrier was infact much
smaller than this. Ramakrishna and Robinson25 were equations34 to describe the macroscopic transfer of en-
ergy between the Zeeman and dipolar reservoirs. Ne-
able to study the dynamics of the protons close to the
glecting relaxation, they obtained
defect site, by first irradiating one forbidden transition
for a long time, and then switching the irradiation fre- ∂β D (∇B)
quency to the other forbidden transition. Their results ∂td =DD∇2βd+ ZB2 ·(∇(BβZ)−βD∇B) (7)
suggesteda spin diffusion barrier of 5-7 ˚A, which is even loc
smaller than that obtained using the Khutsishvili defini- and
tion (α=1/4) which gives 9 ˚A. Ramakrishna26 was also
∂β D
abletoobserveasmallanisotropyofthebarrier. Tseand Z = Z∇[∇(Bβ )−β ∇B] (8)
Z d
Lowe also found the experimentally observed spin diffu- ∂t B
sion barrier in calcium fluoride was about a factor or 2 whereβ andβ aretheinversespintemperaturesofthe
d Z
smallerthanthatpredictedbytheKhutsishvilitheory27. dipolar and Zeeman reservoirs,D and D are the spin
D Z
Using high sensitivity NMR techniques to directly de- diffusion rates of dipolar and Zeeman order, B is the
loc
tect the near-nuclei around the paramagnetic impurity, strength of the local dipolar field and ∇B is the gradi-
Wolfe and collaborators were able to directly probe the ent of the magnetic field around the impurity. In many
thermal contact between these hyperfine-shifted nuclei samples it is this coupling of the Zeeman and dipolar
and the bulk nuclear spins. In Yb/Nd doped yttrium reservoirs at the impurity or defect sites that permits
ethyl sulphate (YES) they observed that very few spins the transport of polarization through the barrier. This
were not in thermal contact with the bulk, and that the process has recently been re-examined by Furman and
diffusionbarrieronlycontained1-2shellsofnuclearspins Goren35. It has also been suggested that if spin diffu-
aroundthe impurity, indicating a barrier on the orderof sion is rapid within the field gradients of the paramag-
3 ˚A28,29. In a similar experiment on Eu-doped calcium neticimpurity,thentheheatcapacityofthenuclearspin
4
dipolar reservoir is significantly enhanced, as the hyper-
TABLE I: Summary of the experimental results of the spin
fine shifted nuclear spins in the barrier are more tightly
diffusion rate of spin-spin energy, DD, and Zeeman energy,
coupled to the nucleardipolar reservoirthan the nuclear
Zeeman reservoir36. DZ for single crystal calcium fluoride. (from Ref.(62))
Furman and Goren37 have suggested that it should Ref.62 [001] [111] D001/D111
D|| (×10−12cm2/s) 29 ± 3 33 ± 4 0.88 ± 0.14
be possible to short-circuit the spin diffusion barrier, by D
performinga standardHartmann-Hahn38 crosspolariza- DZ|| (×10−12cm2/s) 6.4 ± 0.9 4.4 ± 0.5 1.45 ± 0.26
tionexperimentbetweenthespinswithinthebarrierand Ref.61 [001] [111] D001/D111
thoseinthebulk. Thiswouldalsopermittheindirectde- DZ|| (×10−12cm2/s) 7.1 ± 0.5 5.3 ± 0.3 1.34 ± 0.12
tection of the spins within the barrier. It is also possible Theoretical studies of DZ|| [001] [111] D001/D111
thatthesizeofthespindiffusionbarriercanchangedur- Ref.53 (×10−12cm2/s) 6.98 4.98 1.4
ing microwave irradiation of the electron spins24. Under Ref.54 (×10−12cm2/s) 8.22 6.71 1.22
strongmicrowaveirradiation,theelectronscaneffectively Ref.58 (×10−12cm2/s) 7.43 – –
be decoupled from the distant nuclear spins, thus reduc- Theoretical studies of DD|| [001] [111] D001/D111
ing the size of the barrier significantly. Ref.55 (×10−12cm2/s) 8.53 8.73 0.98
The presence of the nuclear spin diffusion barrier has Ref.58 (×10−12cm2/s) 13.3 – –
alsobeenobservedinavarietyofESRexperiments. The Ratio of DD to DZ [001] [111]
Ref.62 4.5±0.8 7.5±1.3 –
dipolar coupling between the electronspin and the more
Ref.55 1.22 1.75 –
distant nuclear spins gives rise to weak satellite lines in
Ref.58 1.79 – –
theESRspectrum39. Theseso-called“spin-flip”(s)tran-
sitionssaturatemoreslowlyundermicrowaveirradiation
comparedtothemainESRline40. Mims41hasalsonoted
thatthepresenceofafrozen-coreofnuclearspinsaround havealsobeenanumberofattemptstocalculatetherate
the electron spin can extend its coherence time. This of spin diffusion in single crystals, for both the Zeeman
frozen core has also been observed Pr3+-doped LaF in energy and the dipolar energy of the spin system using
3
optically-detected ESR experiments42,43, and in ruby44. theoreticalmodels4,21,22,32,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,andclassical
Combined microwave and optical techniques have been simulation58,59.
used to analyze the barrier in fluorene-h10 doped with Spin diffusion provides a well-posed problem in the
fluorene-d1045. studyofmulti-bodydynamics,astheHamiltonianofthe
Coherent neutron scattering experiments have also system is well known, and the nuclear spins are well iso-
been used to probe polarized nuclei close to paramag- lated from other degrees of freedom in the crystal. The
netic impurities46,47, yielding an estimate of about 1nm study ofthe diffusion ofthe Zeemananddipolar ordered
for the spin-diffusion barrier. Neutron scattering could states is essentially the study of the evolution of differ-
beanimportanttoolinexploringthephysicsofthenear- ent initial states under the secular dipolar Hamiltonian.
nuclei, giventhe largedifference in the protonscattering In particular the Zeeman ordered state consists of sin-
cross-section of spin polarized neutrons, depending on glespinpopulationtermsonly,whilethe dipolarordered
whether the two spins are aligned or anti-aligned1. state consistsofcorrelatedtwospinstates60. In astrong
magnetic field these quantities are independently con-
served,andhavedifferentdiffusionratesandspin-lattice
Bulk spin diffusion of Zeeman and dipolar energy relaxation times.
During the spin diffusion process, the spins are in dy-
The signal observed in an NMR experiment is usually namicalequilibriumundertheactionoftheseculardipo-
not from the spins closest to the electron spin. In addi- lar Hamiltonian, and the constants of the motion are
tion to being much smaller in number, the spins in and only defined for the total spin system. If the identity
around the diffusion barrier are both frequency-shifted of individual spins can be distinguished, the spins are
andbroadenedcomparedtothenuclearspinsinthebulk. clearly seen to evolve in time as in the case where we
The nuclear spins in the bulk only experience the pres- write a position dependent phase on the spins. This is
ence of the electronsindirectly — mediatedby bulk spin the essence of reciprocal space diffusion measurements.
diffusion as discussed above. ZhangandCoryusedreciprocalspacetechniquesto per-
Since Bloembergen’s original description of spin diffu- form the first direct experimental measurement of spin
sionanditsroleintheroleinmediatingspin-latticerelax- diffusion in a crystal of CaF261. We recently extended
ation in ionic solids, the process has been studied exten- this technique to directly measure the spindiffusion rate
sively in a variety of materials. It was soon understood of dipolar energy62. While theoretical studies have sug-
thatZeemananddipolarenergycanbetransportedinde- gestedthatthespindiffusionratesofZeemananddipolar
pendentlyinthehighfieldlimit. Historically,attemptsto order should approximately be the same, we found that
measure the spin diffusion rate of Zeeman48,49 and dipo- dipolardiffusionwassignificantlyfasterthanZeemandif-
larenergy50 reliedonthe theoreticalmodels thatrelated fusion (see Table 1).
the diffusion rate to observed relaxation times. There Anexaminationofthephysicalprocessesleadingtothe
5
(a) 2 (b) 3 4 1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
K) K)
e ( 1 e ( 1
ur ur
at0.8 at0.8
er er
p p
em0.6 em0.6
1 1 2 z pin t0.4 pin t0.4
s s
(c) 2 (d) 3 4
0.2 DD = DZ 0.2 DD = 4 DZ
0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
distance (nm) distance (nm)
FIG.3: (Coloronline)Zeeman(blackdash-dotline)anddipo-
lar(bluedashedline)spintemperaturesfollowing1secondof
1 1 2
spindiffusion,obtainedfromsimulationswhere(a)DD =DZ
FIG. 2: (a) For the diffusion of Zeeman order along the z and (b) DD =4DZ. The inital spin temperatures at the left
directionspins1and2needtoundergoaflip-flop. (b)Forthe edgeare10µKand20mKforthedipolarandZeemanreser-
diffusion of dipolar orderalong thez direction, there are two voirs respectively. The solid red line indicates the final spin
possibilities,bothspins1and3,andspins2and4canflip,or temperature following adiabatic transfer. (from Ref.(8))
spins1and 2, andspins3and 4can flip. Thereare thustwo
differentpathstothesamefinalstateandinterferenceeffects
maybeobserved. (c)Ifspins1and2areinitiallyinthesame couplings are of the dipolar form. Patel and Bowers66
state (both ↑ or both ↓), no evolution takes place. (d) Even
usedmultiple-quantumNMRtechniquestoshowthecre-
if states 3 and 4 are initially ↑ and ↓, two different evolution
ation of dipolar order in both gallium arsenide and in-
pathsarepresent. Spins1and2canflipandspins3and4can
dium phosphide, following optical pumping.
flip orspins1 and4 and spins2and 3can flip. Thusdipolar
diffusion dynamicsare less easily quenched. (from Ref.(62)) In a microwave-inducedDNP experiment on a 40 mM
frozen solution of 4-amino TEMPO (in a 40:60 wa-
ter/glycerolmixture),werecentlyobservedthatthebulk
diffusionshows thatthe dynamicscanbe quite different. proton dipolar reservoir is cooled to a spin tempera-
Figure 2 shows a simple illustrative model that suggests ture that is significantly lower than the Zeeman spin
that the diffusion of dipolar order should be faster (and temperature8. In addition we were able to enhance the
morecomplicated)thanthatofZeemanorder,duetothe NMR signal by 50 % by equilibrating the the tempera-
increaseinthenumberofpossiblepathsforthepropoga- tures of the nuclear Zeeman and dipolar reservoirs. We
tion of the dipolar ordered state. The rapid diffusion of believethataGenackandRedfieldmechanismisrespon-
dipolar order is very likely a consequence of a construc- sible for producing the low dipolar spin temperature in
tive interference effect in the many-spin dynamics the vicinity of the electron spins. Moreover, as we ob-
Recently a direct real space measurement of spin served in our earlier spin diffusion measurements, dipo-
diffusion was made using a magnetic resonance force larspin diffusionis significantlyfaster thanZeemanspin
microscope63. They extracted a Zeeman diffusion co- diffusion61,62, and the bulk dipolar reservoir cools faster
effient ofD =(6.2±0.7)×10−12 cm2/s, andestimated thanthebulkZeemanreservoir. Inprinciple,thisprocess
Z
the dipolar diffusion rate to be D = (11±11)×10−12 canbe exploitedtorapidlypolarizethe nuclearspins,by
D
cm2/sfromtheirmeasurement,inagreementwithearlier repeatedly cooling the dipolar system and transferring
results. the polarization to the Zeeman reservoir.
The ability to increase the Zeeman magnetization via
contactwiththedipolarreservoirisexciting,asitshould
Recent experiments be possible to polarize a sample more rapidly by repeat-
edly cooling the dipolar reservoir and transferring this
A number of recent experiments have re-emphasized polarizationtotheZeemanreservoir(seeFigure3). Note
the importanceofthe roleofboththe spindiffusion bar- that this transfer of order occurs in the bulk crystal,not
rier and bulk spin diffusion in the DNP process. Michal just locally to the defect sites. When the weak spin-
and Tycko64 observed the creation of optically pumped locking field is applied the cross polarization between
dipolar order in the 115In spins of indium phosphide. the Zeemananddipolarsystemsoccursonamuchfaster
They suggested that the low dipolar spin temperature timescale,sinceitdoesnotrequiremacroscopictransport
they observed could be the produced indirectly by po- of the polarization. The transport is not limited by the
larization transport through the field gradients of the small heat capacity of the dipolar reservoir.
trapped electrons at the optical pumping sites as pro- Tycko has suggestedthat since semiconductor materi-
posed by Genack and Redfield33,34 or directly by optical alslikeindium phosphidecanbe hyperpolarizedbyopti-
pumping. Tycko65 noted that nuclear-spin dipolar order cal pumping techniques, it might be possible to polarize
can directly result fromoptical pumping if the hyperfine organic or biological systems that are deposited on such
6
substrates by polarization transfer processes65. In ad- Challenges
dition to spin diffusion from the optical pumping sites
to the bulk, this process requires spin diffusion across
In the above discussion, we have ignored the details
the semiconductor/organic interface during the cross-
of the electron spin relaxation process, though the in-
polarization process. Goehring and Michal recently ob-
fluence of the phonon bottleneck at low temperatures is
served that it was possible to transfer approximately 20 well known1. As can be seen from the above discussion,
%ofthetotalnuclearspinpolarizationfrommicronsized
the polarization of bulk nuclei following DNP irradia-
InP particles to an organic layer on the surface67 using
tionis a complex,multi-step process. Many DNP exper-
Hartmann-Hahn techniques38.
iments are characterized by trial and error, rather than
Polarization transport by spin diffusion across such
a first principles design. Efforts to develop optimal con-
a heterogeneous interface following DNP has also been
trol techniques for DNP are likely to be focused on a
observed. Griffin and co-workers have demonstrated
single step, until we can deal with the complexity of the
that the DNP-enhanced nuclear spin polarization of the
many-bodydynamicsinvolved. The models dealingwith
protons of an aqueous solvent (containing the birad-
the spin-diffusion barrier are very approximate, as they
ical TOTAPOL), could be transferred to the protons
ignore the discrete nature of the lattice and depend on
of nanocrystals of the peptide GNNQQNY, via spin
a continuum transport model. Bulk spin diffusion also
diffusion68. Thoughtheirnanocrystalswereonthe order
remains an open problem in many-body spin dynamics.
of 100-200 nm, their model suggests that the nanocrys-
The physics of these systems is rich and complex, and
tals upto 1 µm in diameter could be efficiently polar-
care should be taken when dealing with simple models.
ized using this technique. In a related experiment, we
The field, temperature, concentration of electron spins,
found that microwave irradiation of the electrons (dan-
andthenatureofthenuclearspinsystemallstronglyin-
gling bonds) of the amorphous surface layer of silicon
fluencetheDNPprocessandtheparticularexperimental
microparticles(range 1-5 µm) produceda large dynamic
conditions can strongly determine the outcome.
nuclearpolarization,whichwaseventuallytransferredto
the crystalline core by spin diffusion69. X-ray diffraction
revealedthatthis samplewasapproximately80%amor- Acknowledgements
phous and 20 % crystalline. Though the surface nuclei
had a relatively short T (on the order of minutes), the C.R. thanks Gregory Boutis, HyungJoon Cho, David
1
nuclear spins in the crystalline core had very long T s Cory, Anatoly Dementyev, Daniel Greenbaum and
1
(ontheorderofafewhours),astheT ofthecoreisme- Jonathan Hodges for stimulating discussions. This work
1
diatedbyspindiffusiontothesurface(T ≈R2/D).The was supported in part by the National Security Agency
1
long relaxation times makes these particles a candidate (NSA)underArmyResearchOffice(ARO)contractnum-
for tracer studies. ber W911NF0510469,the NSF and DARPA DSO.
1 A.AbragamandM.Goldman,Nuclear Magnetism: Order 15 G. R. Khutsishvili,Soviet Physics JETP 16, 1540 (1963).
and Disorder (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1982). 16 G. R. Khutsishvili,Soviet Physics Uspekhi 8, 743 (1966).
2 E. C. Reynhardt, Concepts Magn. Reson. A 19A, 36 17 G. R. Khutsishvili,Soviet Physics JETP 15, 909 (1962).
(2003). 18 W. Blumberg, Phys. Rev. 119, 79 (1960).
3 V. V.Atsarkin, Soviet Physics Uspekh 21, 725 (1978). 19 H. E. Rorschach Jr., Physica 30, 38 (1964).
4 N. Bloembergen, Physica 15, 386 (1949). 20 G. R. Khutsisivili, Soviet Physics Uspekh 11, 802 (1969).
5 K. Yao, S. Shi, and H. Rabitz, Chem. Phys. 150, 373 21 G. R. Khutsishvili,Soviet Physics JETP 4, 382 (1957).
(1991). 22 P. G. deGennes, J. Phys.Chem. Solids 7, 345 (1958).
6 R. Khaneja, N. ad Brockett and S. J. Glazer, Phys. Rev. 23 M. Goldman, Phys. Rev. 138, A1675 (1965).
A 63, 032308 (2001). 24 T.J.SchmuggeandC.D.Jeffries, Phys.Rev.138,A1785
7 I. Waller, Z.Phys. 79, 370 (1932). (1965).
8 A.E.Dementyev,D.G.Cory,andC.Ramanathan,Phys. 25 J. Ramakrishna and F. N. H. Robinson, Proc. Phys. Soc.
Rev.B 77, 010802 (2008). 87, 945 (1966).
9 C. D. Jeffies, Dynamic Nuclear Orientation (Interscience 26 J. Ramakrishna, Proc. Phys. Soc. 89, 473 (1966).
Publishers, New York,1963). 27 D. Tse and I. J. Lowe, Phys. Rev. 166, 292 (1968).
10 V.Weis,M.Bennati,M.Rosay,andR.G.Griffin,J.Chem. 28 A. R. King, J. P. Wolfe, and R. L. Ballard, Phys. Rev.
Phys. 113, 6795 (2000). Lett. 28, 1099 (1972).
11 K.-N. Hu, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Tech- 29 J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev.Lett. 31, 907 (1973).
nology (2006). 30 A. D. A. Hansen and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Lett. A 66, 320
12 G. Jeschke and A. Schweiger, Mol. Phys. 88, 355 (1996). (1978).
13 G. Jeschke, Chem. Phys.Lett. 301, 524 (1999). 31 E. P. Horvitz, Phys.Rev.B 3, 2868 (1971).
14 O. S. Leifson and C. D. Jeffries, Phys. Rev. 122, 1781 32 A. G. Redfield and W. N. Yu, Phys. Rev. pp. 443–450
(1961). (1968).
7
33 A. Z. Genack and A. G. Redfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 50 G.B.FurmanandS.D.Goren,J.Phys.: Condens.Matter
1204 (1973). 11, 4045 (1999).
34 A. Z. Genack and A. G. Redfield, Phys. Rev. B 12, 78 51 A. G. Redfield,Phys.Rev. 116, 315 (1959).
(1975). 52 I. J. Lowe and S.Gade, Phys.Rev. 156, 817 (1967).
35 G. B. Furman and S. D. Goren, Phys. Rev. B 68, 064402 53 P.BorckmansandD.Walgraef, Phys.Rev.Lett. 21, 1516
(2003). (1968).
36 S. F. J. Cox, S. F. J. Read, and W. T. Wenckebach, J. 54 A.G.RedfieldandW.N.Yu,Phys.Rev.177,1018(1969).
Phys. C: Solid State Phys.10, 2917 (1977). 55 P.BorckmansandD.Walgraef,Phys.Rev.B7,563(1973).
37 G. Furman and S. Goren, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 14, 56 D. Greenbaum, M. Kindermann, C. Ramanathan, and
873 (2002). C. D. G., Phys.Rev.B 71, 054403 (2005).
38 S. R. Hartmann and E. L. Hahn, Phys. Rev. 128, 2042 57 A. L.Kuzemsky,J. Low Temp. Phys. 143, 213 (2006).
(1962). 58 C. Tang and J. S. Waugh,Phys. Rev.B 45, 748 (1992).
39 G. T. Trammel, H. Zeldes, and R. Livingston, Phys. Rev. 59 D. K. Sodickson and J. S. Waugh, Phys. Rev. B 52, 6467
110, 630 (1958). (1995).
40 E.Sagstuen,A.Lund,Y.Itagaki,andJ.Maruani,J.Phys. 60 H.Cho,D.G.Cory,andR.C., J.Chem.Phys. 118, 3686
Chem. A 104, 6362 (2000). (2003).
41 W. B. Mims, in Electron Paramagnetic Relaxation, edited 61 W. Zhang and D. G. Cory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1324
by S.Geshwind (Plenum, 1972). (1998).
42 R.M.Shelby,C.S.Yannoni,andR.M.MacFarlane,Phys. 62 G. S. Boutis, D. Greenbaum, H. Cho, D. G. Cory, and
Rev.Lett. 41, 1739 (1978). C. Ramanathan, Phys. Rev.Lett. 92, 137201 (2004).
43 L. L. Wald, E. L. Hahn, and M. Lukac, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 63 K. W. Eberhardt, S. Mouaziz, G. Boero, J. Brugger, and
B 9, 789 (1992). B. H. Meier, Phys.Rev. Lett. 99, 227603 (2007).
44 A. Szabo, T. Muramoto, and R. Kaarli, Phys. Rev. B 42, 64 C. A. Michal and R. Tycko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3988
7769 (1990). (1998).
45 P.F.A.Verheij,W.T.Wenckebach,andJ.Schmidt,Appl. 65 R.Tycko, Mol. Phys. 95, 1169 (1998).
Magn. Reson. 5, 187 (1993). 66 A. Patel and C. R. Bowers, Chem. Phys. Lett. 397, 96
46 H. B. Stuhrmann, B. Van den Brandt, P. Hautle, J. A. (2004).
Konter, T. O. Niinikoski, M. Schmitt, R. Willumeit, 67 L.GoehringandC.A.Michal,J.Chem.Phys.119,10325
J. Zhao, and S. Mango, J. Appl. Cryst. 30, 839 (1997). (2003).
47 H. B. Stuhrmann, Acta Crystallographica A 63, 455 68 P.C.A.vanderWel,K.H.Hu,J.Lewandowski,andR.G.
(2007). Griffin, J. Am.Chem. Soc. 128, 10840 (2006).
48 G. W. Leppelmeier and J. Jeener, Phys. Rev. 175, 498 69 A.E.Dementyev,D.G.Cory,andC.Ramanathan,Phys.
(1968). Rev.Lett. (2008), submitted.
49 J. V. Gates II and W. H. Potter, Phys. Rev. B 15, 4143
(1977).
