Environmental Nuclear Magnetic Resonance ... - ACS Publications

Subscriber access provided by READING UNIV

Feature

Environmental Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy: An Overview and A Primer Andre J Simpson, Myrna J Simpson, and Ronald Soong Anal. Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b03241 • Publication Date (Web): 13 Nov 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on November 14, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Analytical Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Analytical Chemistry

Environmental nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy: An overview and a primer

1 2

André J. Simpson*Ṫ Myrna J. Simpson*Ṫ and Ronald Soong

3

Environmental NMR Centre and Department of Physical & Environmental sciences, University of

4

Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, ON, Canada, M1C 1A4

5

Ṫ

These authors contributed equally to the manuscript

6 7 8 9 10

*Corresponding Authors: André J. Simpson, Email: [email protected], Telephone: 416-287-7547, Fax: 416-287-7279 Myrna J. Simpson, Email: [email protected], Telephone: 416-287-7234, Fax: 416-287-7279

11 12

ABSTRACT

13

NMR spectroscopy is a versatile tool for the study of structure and interactions in environmental

14

media such as air, soil, and water as well as monitoring the metabolic responses of living organisms to

15

an ever changing environment. Part review, part perspective and part tutorial, this feature is aimed at

16

non-specialists who are interested in learning more about the potential and impact of NMR spectroscopy

17

in environmental research.

18 19

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy is a widely recognized tool for its unparalleled

20

ability to ascertain the molecular structure of matter in various states (solutions, solids, and gels)1. NMR

21

spectroscopy is commonly applied in diverse fields due to its versatility in studying structure and

22

interactions across a range of molecular systems. NMR experiments can range from simple one-

23

dimensional (1-D) to more complex multi-dimensional experiments that identify bond connectivities and

24

spin-spin interactions2. Consequently, there are potentially thousands of experiments that can be

25

employed to access specific, molecular-level information often inaccessible by other analytical

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

1


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 2 of 33

26

techniques.

In addition, NMR is also highly reproducible even across different laboratories, at

27

difference magnetic field strengths, and with different operators3 as well as providing accurate

28

quantification without the need for external standards 4,5. As such NMR is a non-selective detector (for

29

example detects any molecules containing an NMR active nucleus such as 1H or 13C) making it an ideal

30

tool for non-targeted analyses. Using two-dimensional (2-D) NMR experiments, unknowns can be

31

identified without prior knowledge of the compounds present. This is a major benefit given that other

32

analytical techniques, such as mass spectrometry (MS), require some basic prior information about the

33

analytes of interest to optimize the analysis (e.g.: chromatographic separation, ionization, etc).

34

Environmental systems are highly complex and variable. Ecosystems are dynamic and a number

35

of complex biological, chemical, and physical processes occur within them. Furthermore, climate

36

change, urbanization, agriculture and industrial activity all threaten to change ecosystem function.

37

Therefore, it is imperative to understand molecular-level processes that occur within these ecosystems or

38

environmental compartments (air, soil and water) to increase the fundamental knowledge of ecosystem

39

processes. Environmental chemists are tasked with trying to resolve these complex processes and NMR

40

spectroscopy is playing a central role in this endeavor. The search for clean energy and understanding

41

the fundamental chemistry of biofuels is another important research area that necessitates the use of

42

advanced analytical techniques such as NMR spectroscopy 6. In addition, NMR spectroscopy is used for

43

assessing wastewater treatment efficiency7,8.

44

In many ways understanding larger scale environment phenomena involves working through a

45

continuum of interconnected questions as illustrated in Figure 1. In this case the ultimate question being

46

asked is “how does contaminant X impact aquatic organisms”. The first line of thought may be to

47

expose the organism to a contaminant and using the non-invasive nature of NMR to understand the

48

biological pathways impacted, which helps explain “why” the chemical is toxic. However, related

49

questions such as; “Is the chemical bioavailable in sediment?; what transformation products are ACS Paragon Plus Environment

2

Page 3 of 33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


50

formed?; Does the chemical become sequestered in sediment?”; all complicate the scenario. Here

51

NMR’s ability to be applied to solution, gel and solid phases is essential to study processes in situ and

52

help tackle these complex and interconnected questions. Arguably however, it is nearly impossible to

53

understand how a contaminant binds to sedimentary organic matter without first understanding the

54

structure of the sediment, ideally in its natural fully swollen state. Here NMR’s ability to study both

55

structure and molecular interactions (often determined by mapping spatial proximities while solving

56

structure and conformation de novo is paramount. In summary many environmental concerns can be

57

broken down into 3 basic categories: structure, interactions and impact. Fundamentally structural

58

information is required to understand interactions with environmentally relevant contaminants and

59

agrochemicals, these interactions in turn determine bioavailability and toxicity, which then regulate their

60

impact on living organisms. As such the following feature is organized into three complementary topics,

61

first the role of NMR to study structure in soil, air and water, followed by molecular interactions and

62

finally the response of living systems to environmental change and stress.

63

The number of experiments that can be implemented in NMR spectroscopy are vast and

64

numerous. An overview of the most common forms of experiments and techniques, used in

65

environmental applications are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. However, a more comprehensive

66

overview is found in Simpson et al.9 or Simpson and Simpson10 with more specific literature focusing on

67

various sub-areas namely solution2, High Resolution-Magic Angle Spinning (HR-MAS) (sometimes

68

termed gel-state NMR)11,12, solid-state NMR13-15, low field NMR16,17 and imaging18. Table 1

69

summarizes some of the main NMR techniques used in environmental research and provides some basic

70

information that may be useful to non-experts wishing to perform environmental NMR studies. Readers

71

should note that most of these experiments are applicable to any NMR active nuclei with 1H, 2H, 7Li,

72

13

73

environmentally relevant nuclei.

C, 14N 15N, 19F, 27Al, 29Si, 31P, 111Cd, 113Cd, 195Pt, 199Hg, 207Hg, being amongst the most sensitive and


3


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 4 of 33

74

Similarly there are a multitude of choices for experiments to use in combination with the

75

techniques listed in Table 1. Due to the diverse range of media and interactions in environmental

76

research nearly all well-known NMR experiments have some application. Table 2 summarizes ten of

77

the most useful experiments for the characterization of materials in the solution- and solid-state. For HR-

78

MAS NMR studies solution-state experiments are commonly employed. Additional review articles

79

related to these topics include: Simpson et al.9, and Cardoza et al.19, along with several guides focusing

80

on practical applications 11,20,21.

81

82

ENVIRONMENTAL STRUCTURE

83

As NMR emerged as an informative technique for structural information, the first applications to

84

environmental chemistry focused on 1-D NMR acquisition of soil extracts22. Soil organic matter (SOM)

85

stores more carbon than that in the atmosphere but with climate change, the fate of this carbon,

86

especially in sensitive ecosystems such as the Arctic and peatlands, is highly uncertain 23. Furthermore,

87

SOM binds with metals, organic pollutants, and soil minerals. Therefore, SOM chemistry was of

88

immense interest and some of the early environmental applications targeted the structure of SOM using

89

NMR spectroscopy. With respect to structural elucidation studies, SOM has been amongst the most

90

commonly studied materials using NMR24-26.

91

scientific endeavor that spanned decades and scientists working on this topic did not hesitate to employ

92

NMR techniques to help with this important question22. SOM studies also later employed techniques

93

such as cross polarization magic angle spinning (CP-MAS) solid-state 13C NMR because of its ability to

94

provide an overview of all the components present in dried SOM15,22,27. Paramagnetic species such as

95

iron and manganese can lead to spectral broadening in NMR and for environmental materials rich is

96

these species pre-treatment using HF is recommended28. HF dissolves mineral components both

97

reducing the paramagnetic content while concentrating the organics often leading to improvements in

Unravelling the complex structure of SOM was a


4

Page 5 of 33

1 2 98 3 4 99 5 6 7 8 100 9 10101 11 12 13102 14 15103 16 17104 18 19 20105 21 22106 23 24107 25 26 27108 28 29109 30 31 110 32 33 34111 35 36112 37 38 39113 40 41114 42 43115 44 45 46116 47 48117 49 50118 51 52 53119 54 55120 56 57 58 59 60


both intensity and resolution28. Readers interested in HF treatment and paramagnetic influences are referred to a number of excellent studies on this topic28-31 . 13

C CP-MAS remains the most widely used to measure the composition of SOM because of the

ease of sample preparation and the scientific need to study SOM in its entirety14,27. As such, this technique will likely to be the primary method used for SOM and other forms of natural organic matter (NOM) including atmospheric particles, sediments and isolated/dried dissolved organic matter (DOM)14,15,32,33. Because NOM is a complex mixture, precise structural elucidation is difficult with solid-state experiments unless advanced techniques are employed14. Consequently, solution-state methods can complement information about NOM structure2,9 with 3-D experiments such as TOCSYHSQC showing the ability to resolve individual components34. For example, the detailed study of basesoluble soil extracts, commonly referred to as humic substances, showed that the structure was consistent with a complex mixture of plant- and microbial-derived compounds and biopolymers at varying stages of oxidation35. Previously, it was hypothesized that SOM was predominantly comprised of humic substances which ranged from 10,000-100,000 daltons36,37. Prior to the onset of advanced structural tools such as multi-dimensional NMR spectroscopy, research observations were based on more macroscopic techniques which could not distinguish between large macromolecules or aggregates of smaller molecules that behaved like a macromolecules. Also in the early 2000s, researchers were making similar observations about the chemistry of SOM using a range of molecular techniques and evidence was building against the existence of humic macromolecules (see review by Schmidt et al.37). These studies culminated in a paradigm shift in the understanding of SOM chemistry36,37 and data from solution-state and diffusion ordered spectroscopy (DOSY) NMR studies played a major role in this new understanding which also emphasizes interactions between SOM and clay minerals as a means of stabilizing carbon in soil environments 9.


5


1 2 121 3 4 122 5 6 7 123 8 9 124 10 11125 12 13 14126 15 16127 17 18 128 19 20 21129 22 23130 24 25 131 26 27 28132 29 30133 31 32 33134 34 35135 36 37136 38 39 40137 41 42138 43 44 139 45 46 47140 48 49 50141 51 52 53142 54 55143 56 57 144 58 59 60

Page 6 of 33

Other NMR techniques, such as HR-MAS NMR were also used to better understand the structure and physical conformation of SOM. HR-MAS NMR was developed in the late 1990s38 as a means of acquiring high-resolution spectra on samples that were not fully soluble such as foods, gels, and tissues12. With HR-MAS NMR, components that are in contact with the solvent are observable whereas true solids are not detected11,39,40. For environmental samples such as soil, this showed immense promise because widely used solid-state

13

C NMR methods provide a spectrum of all structures present while

HR-MAS provides information specific to the important soil-water interface41. Evidence for the important role of physical accessibility of specific SOM components was mounting from different facets of environmental chemistry research including SOM-pollutant binding studies as well as SOM degradation studies42-44. Although the consensus was obtained indirectly, it was becoming widely accepted that the compounds observed by both solution-state and solid-state NMR were indeed similar45 and present in soil but not necessarily participating in a range of soil biogeochemical processes and interactions with organic pollutants or metals45. Many specific SOM structures were hypothesized to be protected through interactions with inorganic and organic soil components but these conclusions were made through indirect deduction42-44. Studies using 1H HR-MAS NMR showed that with varying degrees of solvation (D2O versus DMSO-d6), exposed different types of SOM structures and was attributed not only to the polarity of these compounds but their physical location within soil particles41,46. Interestingly, these results provided direct molecular-level evidence that chemical structure as well as the accessibility of these structures is paramount to understand the fate of SOM and reactivity in the environment.

The important need to also elucidate the structure of organic matter found in sediments, water and atmospheric particles have also necessitated the use of a range of NMR techniques47-51. Collectively, these studies have been influential in improving the understanding of organic matter structure, its sources and subsequent reactivity in various facets within the environment. NMR is also an important


6

Page 7 of 33

1 2 145 3 4 146 5 6 7 147 8 9 148 10 11 12 13149 14 15150 16 17151 18 19 20152 21 22153 23 24154 25 26 27155 28 29156 30 31 157 32 33 34158 35 36159 37 38 39160 40 41161 42 43 44 162 45 46 47 48163 49 50 51 52164 53 54165 55 56166 57 58 59167 60


tool in related areas of research including chemical ecology, biofuels, and assessment of wastewater composition including detection of pollutants6-8,52,53. Its unparalleled ability to provide detailed structural information on a range of environmental samples makes it one of the most versatile analytical techniques in modern science6-8,53-55.

Another important aspect of environmental chemistry where NMR has been influential is in the identification of pollutants and their respective degradation products8,52,56. In 1976, Taves et al. used 19F NMR to identify perfluorinated organic fluorine compounds in human plasma57, decades before they were rediscovered by MS58. The hyphenation of liquid chromatography (LC) with NMR has also enabled the identification of components of more complex pollutant mixtures56. Collectively, NMR played a critical role in uncovering the structures and transformations in carbon pools in air, soil and water, as well playing a role in understanding the fate of anthropogenic chemicals. NMR also holds great potential for studying bonding within the mineral phase and probing interactions between minerals and organic matter59-64 in addition to unravelling the structures of air particles32 and monitoring atmospheric reactions65. In many of the areas the application of NMR is still in its infancy, holding great potential for significant progress in these fields. However, NMR has many more facets beyond providing structural information, in particular, its ability to probe non-covalent interactions is of great important to environmental research.

ASSOCIATIONS AND INTERACTIONS

When studying the interactions of an environmental matrix such as soil, sediment or air particles with, for example, an agrochemical or contaminant it is important to perform the studies under conditions as close to the native state as possible. A swollen soil for example may have DOM in the pore water, swollen material at the soil water interface, and true solid materials within domains that water ACS Paragon Plus Environment

7


1 2 168 3 4 169 5 6 7 170 8 9 171 10 11172 12 13 14173 15 16174 17 18 175 19 20 21176 22 23177 24 25 26 27178 28 29 30179 31 32 33 34180 35 36181 37 38 39182 40 41183 42 43184 44 45 46185 47 48186 49 50 187 51 52 53188 54 55189 56 57 190 58 59 60

Page 8 of 33

cannot penetrate. All of these sub-compartments are critical for soil processes, the pore water is essential for nutrient transfer to roots, the soil-water interface for the rate and mechanism of contaminant transfer between soil and water, while the solid domains are key domains where hydrophobic contaminants become sequestered 66. To truly understand “what soil is” environmental researchers need molecular tool that describe both the physical and chemical organization of components and under different hydration levels. Only with this knowledge it is possible to truly understand the fate, transformation, sequestration of contaminants in the environment. With this in mind it is clear that both understanding the chemical and physical organization of the matrices themselves (soils, plants etc.) as well as the interaction of xenobiotic chemicals (agrochemicals, drugs, contaminants) with these matrices is essential. As such these topics will be introduced and discussed sequentially.

Associations, Conformation and Physical Organization in Environmental Matrices While DOM is arguably one of the most complex mixtures known67 it is by definition dissolved in the aquatic environment. As such studies using solution-state NMR have a high degree of environmental relevance. Traditionally, DOM studies have been performed using isolates that are redissolved at higher concentration for NMR after pre-concentration67. Studies using DOSY NMR have shown that even at relatively low concentration DOM is in an aggregated state68-70, however, there is still concern that any sort of pre-concentration could change the natural aggregated state of the material. As such novel water suppression approaches have been developed that permit the study of DOM at natural abundance in altered samples71. These approaches have been applied to lake, ocean, river71 ground water47 as well as Antarctic glacial ice72. Arguably the most impressive application was the study of hydrodynamic size of DOM in unconcentrated pond, river, and sea waters by Zheng and Price73. They concluded the aggregation of components in pond water changed with concentration which highlighted


8

Page 9 of 33

1 2 191 3 4 192 5 6 7 193 8 9 10194 11 12 13195 14 15196 16 17197 18 19 20198 21 22199 23 24200 25 26 27201 28 29202 30 31 203 32 33 34 35204 36 37205 38 39 40206 41 42207 43 44 208 45 46 47209 48 49210 50 51 52211 53 54 55212 56 57 213 58 59 60


the importance of hydrodynamics of DOM in unconcentrated natural waters. They further pointed out the potential to their approach to study interactions between DOM and persistent organic pollutants at natural abundance73.

Unfortunately, unlike DOM which due to its highly soluble nature in water can be analysed in its entirety in the solution-state, most environmental matrices often contain a continuum of materials ranging from liquids to true solids. While extraction will invariably change properties, even less invasive approaches such as drying (for solid-state NMR studies) will remove key information on the solidaqueous interface, may change the conformation and eliminate water mediated structure. For example in atmospheric research air particulates contain partially soluble organics that are key cloud condensation nuclei74 and understanding the surface species at different hydration levels is critical. Similar arguments can be made in regard to the fate of contaminants in soils and sediments which changes significantly with water content75. Luckily due to the versatility of NMR it can still be applied to fully swollen samples in their natural state. The simplest approach would be using two different NMR probes. 1H HR-MAS techniques to study the liquids and gels along with

13

C solid-state based approaches to study the components that

remain as true solids in the present of water. Indeed if the system is relatively stable (i.e. the phases are not dynamically changing) the use of two probes to study a multiphase sample is certainly feasible76-78. However, if the study involves a dynamic process, for example swelling, flocculation, penetration of a contaminant and the goal is to monitor all phases at the same time using separate probes becomes challenging. In this case a relatively new approach that termed Comprehensive Multiphase NMR Spectroscopy (CMP NMR) may be ideal.

CMP NMR probes, combine a lock (stability over time), gradient (coherence selection and diffusion), MAS (line narrowing), susceptibility matched stator (good 1H lineshape) with high power


9


1 2 214 3 4 215 5 6 7 216 8 9 217 10 11218 12 13 14219 15 16220 17 18 221 19 20 21222 22 23223 24 25 26 27224 28 29225 30 31 226 32 33 34227 35 36228 37 38 39229 40 41230 42 43231 44 45 46232 47 48 49233 50 51 52234 53 54235 55 56236 57 58 59237 60

Page 10 of 33

circuitry (permits full solid-state NMR). When combined with a series of editing experiments, solutions, gels and solids can be differentiated in situ and in unaltered natural samples39. So far the approach has been applied to follow biofuel penetration into car components79, the germination of plants80 and seed structure81, and oil contaminated soils82. Masoom et al.83 demonstrated that when combined solution-, gel- and solid-state NMR approaches could provide a detailed insight into the organization of components within soil and how the domains and associations change with pH and solvent. Such studies provide a unique insight into soil structure in its natural swollen state which is largely inaccessible to any other analytical approach.

Interactions of Anthropogenic Organic Chemicals and Heavy Metals

NMR spectroscopy is sensitive to any perturbation of the chemical environment around nuclei. As such it is not just a powerful tool for the study of chemical structure (i.e. covalent bonds) but also non-covalent interactions

84

. Non-covalent interactions are critical in environmental research and are

central to contaminant sequestration, transport and fate. For example, the association of a herbicide with soil determines it efficacy (how much reaches the target plant vs binds to the soil), it bioavailability (does it bind irreversibly to soil becoming non bioavailable), its transport (does it stick to soil or move into the aquatic environment) and its reactivity (for example bound chemicals can be protected from photochemistry). Thus for both heavy metals and organic contaminants, understanding non-covalent interactions with environmental media is arguably one of the most important questions in the field.

Example studies have researched non-covalent pollutant interactions with soil by solid-state NMR and 1H HR-MAS NMR85-91 as well as covalent binding using

15

13

C or

19

F

N NMR92,93. These

studies provide insight into the molecular environment of the pollutant which helps elucidate binding mechanisms as well as the soil components that the pollutant is binding to. Consequently, these studies are critically important as most pollutant-soil studies involve indirect methods, such as measuring ACS Paragon Plus Environment

10

Page 11 of 33

1 2 238 3 4 239 5 6 7 240 8 9 241 10 11242 12 13 14243 15 16244 17 18 245 19 20 21246 22 23247 24 25 26 27248 28 29 30249 31 32 33250 34 35251 36 37252 38 39 40253 41 42 43254 44 45 46255 47 48256 49 50 257 51 52 53258 54 55259 56 57 260 58 59 60


binding coefficients, that do not provide any molecular-level information about the mechanisms of binding43,44. For example, Sachleben et al.89 showed that pyrene was binding strongly to mobile aliphatic domains in plant cuticle by

13

C NMR.

hexafluorobenzene using solid-state

19

Kohl et al.87 probed the molecular environment of

F solid-state NMR and found that after sorption to soil,

hexafluorobenzene exhibited a high degree of mobility which suggested that the pollutant was binding to specific SOM components. Using 1H HR-MAS NMR, Shirzadi et al.90 monitored the sorption kinetics of several pesticides and reported that transitioning from swellable to pure solid domains was not only a function of contact time but also the moisture level within the soil.

Collectively, these types of

mechanistic studies provide complementary information that greatly improves the interpretation from more traditional studies that measure binding coefficients.

Experiments for Studying Interactions

A wide range of experiments exist to study molecular interactions and readers are referred to general reviews by Cardoza et al.19, by Simpson et al.9, Mazzei and Piccolo84 as well as specific reviews on metal interactions94, organic pollutants84 and clays95.

In general experiments that measure

interactions can be split into two main categories: 1) Experiments that detect both free and bound species, 2) Experiments that specifically select the bound component.

Experiments that Detect Free and Bound Components: In simple chemical systems, the chemical shift of the free form and bound form can be different enough that they become resolved in a 1-D NMR spectrum. This is the ideal case and other informative measurements such as relaxation (T1, T2), NOE (interactions through space and exchange) and self-diffusion of the different forms are easy to measure. Unfortunately, environmental systems such as DOM and soil contain 10,000 or 100,0000’s of chemical components51. As such chemicals can bind or partition to many different components and to a varying extents. In turn measurements such as T1 and T2 relaxation times and diffusion represent averages or


11


1 2 261 3 4 262 5 6 7 263 8 9 264 10 11265 12 13 14266 15 16267 17 18 268 19 20 21269 22 23270 24 25 271 26 27 28272 29 30273 31 32 33274 34 35 36275 37 38 39276 40 41277 42 43278 44 45 46279 47 48280 49 50281 51 52 53282 54 55283 56 57 58 59 60

Page 12 of 33

distributions rather than discrete values68. While these averages can be very useful especially when comparing between different environmental samples, this complexity can hinder interpretation and make exact information regarding binding sites, exchange, etc. more difficult to obtain. Experiments that specifically select the bound component: Experiments can be designed that select specifically for the bound signal while other signals cancel. Such experiments tend to be more technical to implement but provide information that is simpler and easier to interpret in complex systems. A key example is saturation transfer difference (STD) NMR96. In the STD experiment 1H nuclei in the soil (receptor) are selectively saturated. This saturation is then passed from the soil onto the positions of the contaminant (ligand) in close proximity to the soil90. Other positions in the contaminant, as well as contaminant molecules not binding to the soil, do not receive saturation and are not detected using the difference approach employed. The result can be converted into an epitope map (see Figure 2) that where relative interaction strength at each position is reported allowing easy visualization of the binding orientation of the xenobiotic. STD has been used to monitor in the interactions of pesticides at the soil water interface using HR-MAS NMR90 and in SOM solutions using solution-state NMR91 97.

These types of experiments can be even more informative if a heteronuclear, such as

19

F is

present in the contaminant that is not in abundance in the environmental matrix. In this case both heteronuclear saturation transfer difference (HSTD), and reverse heteronuclear saturation difference (RHSTD) can be employed. Both have been employed to study the interaction of per fluorinated chemicals with extracted SOM98 and whole soil98. HSTD provides similar information as STD (but is easier to implement due to no overlap between the ligand and receptor) while RHSTD identifies the subcomponents in the soil that bind to the xenobiotic. In RHSTD the

19

F nuclei in the PFC are saturated,

which then propagates onto the 1H nuclei in the soil touching the contaminant. Due the effective spin diffusion within the soil, the components touching the contaminant become coated in saturation and the


12

Page 13 of 33

1 2 284 3 4 285 5 6 7 8 286 9 10287 11 12 13288 14 15289 16 17290 18 19 20291 21 22292 23 24293 25 26 27294 28 29 30295 31 32 33296 34 35297 36 37298 38 39 40299 41 42300 43 44 301 45 46 47302 48 49303 50 51 52304 53 54305 55 56306 57 58 59 60


result (acquired by difference) is an NMR spectrum of only the components in the soil touching the contaminant (as depicted in Figure 2).

These concepts can be easily extended to the true solid-state, where CP rather than saturation transfer can be employed. Intermolecular CP is only effective in rigid solids and does not occur in solutions39. As such CP can be used as a filter to observe only the most rigid interactions which correlate to the sequestered state of the contaminant fully entrapped in the soil matrix99. By combining CP and saturation filters, it was recently shown that the fate of a molecule could be tracked as it penetrated into a whole soil66. The kinetics of sorption along with binding orientation and binding sites (i.e. protein, lignin etc.) was measured and differentiated in the solution, gel and solid-phase of the water swollen soil in situ. The result was an unprecedented insight into the molecular fate and binding of molecules within soil under environmentally relevant conditions66.

Moving forward novel methods need to be developed that continue to target interactions in complex environmental systems. Heteronuclear approaches based around 19F are unfortunately restricted to the study of interactions in perfluorinated chemicals. However, analogous experiments using 2H as the heteronuclear have huge potential albeit with less sensitivity than

19

F. 2H can replace 1H in practically

any organic structure with minimal changes to the chemistry of the molecule and 2H enriched molecules tend to be generally more economical and more available than for example

13

C enriched analogues.

Additionally, a wide range of experiments can be constructed around diffusion, CP and/or relaxation filters to target sub-components in a mixture66. For example a diffusion filter selects molecules that do not exhibit self-diffusion and thus can be used to select the fraction of contaminant bounds to a larger molecules or surfaces. This is a clear area within environmental NMR that will require researchers not just to use the techniques available but where possible actively develop novel techniques to address the complex questions specific to environmental research.


13


1 2 307 3 4 5 308 6 7 8 9 309 10 11310 12 13 14311 15 16312 17 18 313 19 20 21314 22 23315 24 25 26316 27 28317 29 30318 31 32 33319 34 35320 36 37 38 39321 40 41322 42 43323 44 45 46324 47 48325 49 50 326 51 52 53327 54 55328 56 57 329 58 59 60

Page 14 of 33

METABOLOMICS

Metabolomics focuses on the detection and sensitive measurement of metabolite fluxes that can be related to changes in basic metabolic function that can occur due to disease or some external stressor100-102. Applications in both ecology and ecotoxicity have increased considerably over the past decades with these studies focusing on environment-organism interactions such as pollutant exposure, changes in nutrient or temperature, pH or salinity103,104. Environmental metabolomic studies are diverse due the high number of organisms that reside in soil and water54,104-107. As such, several different types of organisms have been targeted for environmental metabolomic studies. Furthermore, many of the keystone organisms do not have a mapped genome or a characterized proteome. This, coupled with the rapid changes that can be detected in metabolites within hours of stress, has resulted in widespread applications of NMR in environmental metabolomics.

Consequently, metabolomics has immense

potential to reshape the understanding of how environmental change impacts ecosystem health and also hold the potential as an early warning system for using in environmental monitoring103,104. NMR spectroscopy has been central to environmental metabolomic applications102,108. In most studies, the metabolites of interest where unknown and as such, NMR analysis was preferred because of its ability to provide a holistic fingerprint of all metabolites present. In addition, minimal sample preparation for NMR is conducive to high-throughput analysis, which yields large numbers of NMR spectra that can be analyzed using multi-variate statistical methods such as principal component analysis (PCA). In addition, the analytical reproducibility of 1H NMR spectra is excellent and studies have reported 100 million. Interestingly 6 and 7 dimensional NMR experiments are now available and by combining sparse random sampling and projection spectroscopy can now be collected in a day137. Such experiments could potentially reach peak capacities ACS Paragon Plus Environment

18

Page 19 of 33

1 2 426 3 4 427 5 6 7 428 8 9 429 10 11430 12 13 14431 15 16432 17 18 433 19 20 21434 22 23435 24 25 436 26 27 28437 29 30438 31 32 33439 34 35440 36 37441 38 39 40442 41 42443 43 44 444 45 46 47445 48 49446 50 51 52447 53 54448 55 56449 57 58 59450 60


of >1015 offering potential individual bond discrimination even in the most complex mixtures such as a DOM which have been reported to contain 1012 molecules per mL.138 The versatility of NMR to study molecules in the solid, gel and solution forms allows analysis samples in situ and provides key partitioning and sequestration information that is challenging to obtain by other analytical approaches. The non-destructive nature of NMR makes it ideal for studying in vivo samples. This will be especially important for understanding the impact of environmental factors on both human and environmental health. For example 25% of neurological diseases are now thought to be linked to environmental factors139. The combination of metabolomics and in vivo NMR hold the potential to explain why chemical are toxic, identify synergistic effects and to potentially act as an early warning indicator for environmental stress and change. It is clear that NMR has a central and essential role to play in the future of environmental research. However, despite its potential its use in environmental research is not widespread. Various factors include, cost of instrumentation, cryogenic maintenance, perceived knowledge and technical barriers as well as relatively low sensitivity. NMR operation is certainly not trivial but the instrument manufacturers have worked hard to simplify the acquisition of very complex data and provided easier access to use tools to aid with interpretation. There is no doubt that the Achilles heel of NMR is its relatively low sensitivity especially when compared to MS (most common tool in environmental research). However, there continue to be major leaps in sensitivity with modern NMR microcoils offering 5pmol detection limits making possible the analysis of individual eggs of 100pL volume, and with other technologies such as cryoprobes140, dynamic nuclear polarization, hyperpolarization141 offering further sensitivity gains. Given the potential of NMR as a non-selective detector in the discovery of novel contaminant classes (for example perfluorinated chemicals were discovered by

19

F

NMR decades before mass spectroscopy58 ) the ever increasing sensitivity of NMR should make useful tool for discovery of new contaminants and transformation products especially when interfaced with concentration methods such as solid phase extraction. Furthermore, one of largest problems faced in ACS Paragon Plus Environment

19


1 2 451 3 4 452 5 6 7 453 8 9 454 10 11455 12 13 14456 15 16457 17 18 458 19 20 21459 22 23460 24 25 461 26 27 28462 29 30463 31 32 33464 34 35465 36 37466 38 39 40467 41 42468 43 44 45 46469 47 48 49470 50 51 52471 53 54472 55 56473 57 58 59474 60

Page 20 of 33

environmental research is that 100,000’s of molecular formulae can be generated by MS but these are difficult to assign to specific chemicals structures142. Essentially MS provides the elements in an unknown sample whereas NMR tells us how these are connected to form the structure. As such if chemicals can be fraction collected after chromatographic separation, for example 2-D gas chromatography, and analyzed by microcoil NMR combined the NMR and MS data should be able to identify even the most challenging unknowns. In summary NMR spectroscopy has a continuum of applications from structure determination (contaminants, SOM, atmospheric particles) to molecular interactions (agrochemical, drug and contaminant fate) to biological impact (which pathways are perturbed, i.e. detection and explanation of environmental stress). NMR is central to future of environmental research but to fully realize its potential more researchers actively developing techniques and approaches are needed. Environmental research with its heterogeneous and complex matrices is arguably the most challenging area for NMR. As such researchers need to be actively exploring the limits of the technology in turn encouraging the manufacturers and research field to develop more powerful solutions. Often NMR provides a wealth of information that cannot be obtained by any other approach yet is essential to progress. The widespread application of development of NMR in these directions will be critical to the future of environmental research.

Author Biographies

Andre J. Simpson is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Toronto. He spent his career on the development of NMR spectroscopy for environmental applications. He co-founded the Environmental NMR Centre in 2004 at the University of Toronto Scarborough and currently acts as the Centre’s Director. His research interests focus on understanding structure and interactions in complex environmental samples including the development of novel NMR technology to achieve this goal. ACS Paragon Plus Environment

20

Page 21 of 33

1 2 475 3 4 476 5 6 7 477 8 9 478 10 11 12 13479 14 15480 16 17481 18 19 20482 21 22483 23 24484 25 26 27 28485 29 30 31 486 32 33 34 35487 36 37 488 38 39 40489 41 42490 43 44 491 45 46 47492 48 49 50 493 51 52 53 494 54 55495 56496 57497 58498 59 60


Myrna J. Simpson is a Professor of Environmental Chemistry and Associate Director of the Environmental NMR Centre at the University of Toronto Scarborough. Her research interests include environmental and analytical chemistry with the specific focus on elucidation of environmental processes at the molecular-level and how these processes are impacted by anthropogenic activities.

Dr. Ronald Soong graduated from the University of Toronto with a PhD in Physical Chemistry. Later, he did 2 years of postdoctoral studies at the University of Michigan where he developed solid-state NMR pulse sequences for membrane protein structure determination under the supervision of Prof. Ramamoorthy. In 2010, he joined the Environmental NMR Centre as Senior Scientist & NMR Manager. Currently, Dr. Ronald Soong is developing NMR techniques and applications for environmental research.

Acknowledgements

A.J.S. and M.J.S thanks NSERC for support via the Strategic and Discovery Grants programs. The Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), and the Ministry of Research and Innovation (MRI) and Krembil Foundation are thanked for funding in support of the Environmental NMR Centre. M.J.S. also thanks NSERC for support via the Discovery Accelerator Supplement program. A.J.S. and M.J.S would like to thank Bruker BioSpin, especially Dr. Henry Stronks, Dr. Manfred Spraul and Dr. Werner Maas for their continued support and collaborations in the development of environmental NMR spectroscopy.

References (1) Levitt, M. H. Spin Dynamics: Basics of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2005. (2) Hertkorn, N. eMagRes 2014, 3, 55-75. (3) Dumas, M. E.; Maibaum, E. C.; Teague, C.; Ueshima, H.; Zhou, B. F.; Lindon, J. C.; Nicholson, J. K.; Stamler, J.; Elliott, P.; Chan, Q.; Holmes, E. Anal. Chem. 2006, 78, 2199-2208. (4) Akoka, S.; Barantin, L.; Trierweiler, M. Anal. Chem. 1999, 71, 2554-2557. ACS Paragon Plus Environment

21


1 2 499 3 500 4 501 5 502 6 7 503 8 504 9 505 10506 11507 12 508 13 14509 15510 16511 17512 18 513 19 20514 21515 22516 23517 24518 25 519 26 27520 28521 29522 30523 31 524 32 33525 34526 35527 36528 37529 38 39530 40531 41532 42533 43534 44 535 45 46536 47537 48538 49539 50540 51 52541 53542 54543 55544 56545 57 546 58 59547 60

Page 22 of 33

(5) Michel, N.; Akoka, S. J. Mag. Reson. 2004, 168, 118-123. (6) Ferreira, A. G.; Lião, L. M.; Monteiro, M. R. eMagRes 2013, 2, 529-540. (7) Alves, E. G.; Silva, L. M. A. E.; Ferreira, A. G. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2015, 53, 648-657. (8) Alves Filho, E. G.; Alexandre e Silva, L. M.; Ferreira, A. G. eMagRes 2017, 6, 173–186. (9) Simpson, A. J.; McNally, D. J.; Simpson, M. J. Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 2011, 58, 97175. (10) Simpson, M. J.; Simpson, A. J., Eds.; NMR Spectroscopy: A Versatile Tool for Environmental Research; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2014. (11) Farooq, H.; Courtier-Murias, D.; Soong, R.; Bermel, W.; Kingery, W. M.; Simpson, A. J. Curr. Org. Chem. 2013, 17, 3013-3031. (12) Stark, R. E.; Yu, B.; Zhong, J.; Yan, B.; Wu, G.; Tian, S. eMagRes 2013, 2, 377–388. (13) Conte, P.; Spaccini, R.; Piccolo, A. Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 2004, 44, 215-223. (14) Mao, J. D.; Cao, X. Y.; Olk, D. C.; Chu, W. Y.; Schmidt-Rohr, K. Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 2017, 100, 17-51. (15) Preston, C. M. eMagRes 2014, 3, 29–42. (16) Conte, P.; Alonzo, G. eMagRes 2013, 2, 389-398. (17) Danieli, E.; Blümich, B.; Casanova, F. eMagRes 2012, 1, 849-861. (18) Nestle, N.; Morris, R.; Baumann, T. eMagRes 2013, 2, 575-586. (19) Cardoza, L. A.; Korir, A. K.; Otto, W. H.; Wurrey, C. J.; Larive, C. K. Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 2004, 45, 209-238. (20) Preston, C. M. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2001, 81, 255-270. (21) Simpson, A. Soil Science 2001, 166, 795-809. (22) Berns, A. E.; Knicker, H. eMagRes 2014, 3, 43–54. (23) Trumbore, S. E.; Czimczik, C. I. Science 2008, 321, 1455-1456. (24) Preston, C. M. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2015, 53, 635-647. (25) Thorn, K. A. Sci. Total Environ. 1987, 62, 175-183. (26) Thorn, K. A.; Arterburn, J. B.; Mikita, M. A. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1992, 26, 107-116. (27) Simpson, M. J.; Simpson, A. J. J. Chem. Ecol. 2012, 38, 768-784. (28) Gelinas, Y.; Baldock, J. A.; Hedges, J. I. Org. Geochem. 2001, 32, 677-693. (29) Keeler, C.; Maciel, G. E. Anal. Chem. 2003, 75, 2421-2432. (30) Salati, S.; Adam, F.; Cosentino, C.; Torri, G. Chemosphere 2008, 70, 2092-2098. (31) Schmidt, M. W. I.; Knicker, H.; Hatcher, P. G.; Kӧgel-Knabner, I. Eur J Soil Sci 1997, 48, 319-328. (32) Duarte, R. M. B. O.; Duarte, A. C. eMagRes 2013, 2, 415–426. (33) Mitchell, P. J.; Simpson, A. J.; Simpson, M. J. eMagRes 2013, 2, 503–516. (34) Simpson, A. J.; Kingery, W. L.; Hatcher, P. G. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 337-342. (35) Kelleher, B. P.; Simpson, A. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 4605-4611. (36) Lehmann, J.; Kleber, M. Nature 2015, 528, 60-68. (37) Schmidt, M. W. I.; Torn, M. S.; Abiven, S.; Dittmar, T.; Guggenberger, G.; Janssens, I. A.; Kleber, M.; Kӧgel-Knabner, I.; Lehmann, J.; Manning, D. A. C.; Nannipieri, P.; Rasse, D. P.; Weiner, S.; Trumbore, S. E. Nature 2011, 478, 49-56. (38) Maas, W. E.; Laukien, F. H.; Cory, D. G. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 13085-13086. (39) Courtier-Murias, D.; Farooq, H.; Masoom, H.; Botana, A.; Soong, R.; Longstaffe, J. G.; Simpson, M. J.; Maas, W. E.; Fey, M.; Andrew, B.; Struppe, J.; Hutchins, H.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Kumar, R.; Monette, M.; Stronks, H. J.; Hume, A.; Simpson, A. J. J. Mag. Reson. 2012, 217, 61-76. (40) Simpson, A. J.; Simpson, M. J.; Kingery, W. L.; Lefebvre, B. A.; Moser, A.; Williams, A. J.; Kvasha, M.; Kelleher, B. P. Langmuir 2006, 22, 4498-4503. (41) Simpson, A. J.; Kingery, W. L.; Shaw, D. R.; Spraul, M.; Humpfer, E.; Dvortsak, P. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, 3321-3325. (42) Baldock, J. A.; Skjemstad, J. O. Org. Geochem. 2000, 31, 697-710. ACS Paragon Plus Environment

22

Page 23 of 33

1 2 548 3 549 4 550 5 551 6 7 552 8 553 9 554 10555 11556 12 557 13 14558 15559 16560 17561 18 562 19 20563 21564 22565 23566 24567 25 568 26 27569 28570 29571 30572 31 573 32 33574 34575 35576 36577 37578 38 39579 40580 41581 42582 43583 44 584 45 46585 47586 48587 49588 50589 51 52590 53591 54592 55593 56594 57 595 58 59596 60


(43) Chefetz, B.; Xing, B. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 1680-1688. (44) Luthy, R. G.; Aiken, G. R.; Brusseau, M. L.; Cunningham, S. D.; Gschwend, P. M.; Pignatello, J. J.; Reinhard, M.; Traina, S. J.; Weber, W. J.; Westall, J. C. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 3341-3347. (45) Clemente, J. S.; Gregorich, E. G.; Simpson, A. J.; Kumar, R.; Courtier-Murias, D.; Simpson, M. J. Environ. Chem. 2012, 9, 97-107. (46) Genest, S. C.; Simpson, M. J.; Simpson, A. J.; Soong, R.; McNally, D. J. Environ. Chem. 2014, 11, 472-482. (47) Bliumkin, L.; Majumdar, R. D.; Soong, R.; Adamo, A.; Abbatt, J. P. D.; Zhao, R.; Reiner, E.; Simpson, A. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 5506-5516. (48) Dutta Majumdar, R.; Bliumkin, L.; Lane, D.; Soong, R.; Simpson, M.; Simpson, A. J. Water Res. 2017, 120, 64-76. (49) Pautler, B. G.; Woods, G. C.; Dubnick, A.; Simpson, A. J.; Sharp, M. J.; Fitzsimons, S. J.; Simpson, M. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3753-3761. (50) Schmidt-Rohr, K.; Mao, J. D.; Olk, D. C. PNAS 2004, 101, 6351-6354. (51) Woods, G. C.; Simpson, M. J.; Simpson, A. J. Water Res. 2012, 46, 3398-3408. (52) Chilom, G.; Rice, J. A. eMagRes 2015, 2, 587–596. (53) Ocampos, F. M. M.; Menezes, L. R. A.; Dutra, L. M.; Santos, M. F. C.; Ali, S.; Barison, A. eMagRes 2017, 6, 325-341. (54) Charlton, A. J.; Donarski, J. A.; Jones, S. A.; May, B. D.; Clive Thompson, K. J. Environ. Monit. 2006, 8, 1106-1110. (55) Schneider, B. eMagRes 2013, 2, 451–466. (56) Godejohann, M. eMagRes 2013, 2, 477–492. (57) Taves, D. R.; Grey, W. S.; Brey Jr, W. S. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 1976, 37. (58) Renner, R. Anal. Chem. 2005, 77, 15a-16a. (59) Grey, C. P.; Nielsen, U. G.; Paik, Y.; Phillips, B.; Reeder, R. J.; Schoonen, M. Abstr Pap Am Chem S 2005, 229, U737-U737. (60) Nielsen, U. G.; Paik, Y.; Julmis, K.; Schoonen, M. A. A.; Reeder, R. J.; Grey, C. P. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 18310-18315. (61) Williams, R. J. P.; Giles, R. G. F.; Posner, A. M. J Chem Soc Chem Comm 1981, 1051-1052. (62) Bowers, G. M.; Lipton, A. S.; Mueller, K. T. Solid State Nucl. Magn. Reson. 2006, 29, 95-103. (63) Sanders, R. L.; Washton, N. M.; Mueller, K. T. J Phys Chem C 2010, 114, 5491-5498. (64) Strepka, C.; Choi, S.; O'Day, P.; Chorover, J.; Mueller, K. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2008, 72, A907-A907. (65) Zhao, R.; Lee, A. K. Y.; Soong, R.; Simpson, A. J.; Abbatt, J. P. D. Atmos Chem Phys 2013, 13, 5857-5872. (66) Masoom, H.; Courtier-Murias, D.; Soong, R.; Maas, W. E.; Fey, M.; Kumar, R.; Monette, M.; Stronks, H. J.; Simpson, M. J.; Simpson, A. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 13983-13991. (67) Li, Y.; Harir, M.; Uhl, J.; Kanawati, B.; Lucio, M.; Smirnov, K. S.; Koch, B. P.; Schmitt-Kopplin, P.; Hertkorn, N. Water Res. 2017, 116, 316-323. (68) Lam, B.; Simpson, A. J. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2009, 28, 931-939. (69) Simpson, A. J. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2002, 40, S72-S82. (70) Smejkalova, D.; Piccolo, A. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 699-706. (71) Lam, B.; Simpson, A. J. Analyst 2008, 133, 263-269. (72) Pautler, B. G.; Simpson, A. J.; Simpson, M. J.; Tseng, L. H.; Spraul, M.; Dubnick, A.; Sharp, M. J.; Fitzsimons, S. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 4710-4717. (73) Zheng, G.; Price, W. S. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 1675-1680. (74) Broekhuizen, K.; Kumar, P. P.; Abbatt, J. P. D. Geophys.l Res. Let. 2004, 31. (75) Schneckenburger, T.; Schaumann, G. E.; Woche, S. K.; Thiele-Bruhn, S. J. Soil Sed. 2012, 12, 1269-1279. ACS Paragon Plus Environment

23


1 2 597 3 598 4 599 5 600 6 7 601 8 602 9 603 10604 11605 12 606 13 14607 15608 16609 17610 18 611 19 20612 21613 22614 23615 24616 25 617 26 27618 28619 29620 30621 31 622 32 33623 34624 35625 36626 37627 38 39628 40629 41630 42631 43632 44 633 45 46634 47635 48636 49637 50638 51 52639 53640 54641 55642 56643 57 644 58 59645 60

Page 24 of 33

(76) Hughes, C. E.; Williams, P. A.; Harris, K. D. M. Angew.Chem. Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 8939-8943. (77) Lam, B.; Diamond, M. L.; Simpson, A. J.; Makar, P. A.; Truong, J.; Hernandez-Martinez, N. A. Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 6578-6586. (78) Simpson, A. J.; Lam, B.; Diamond, M. L.; Donaldson, D. J.; Lefebvre, B. A.; Moser, A. Q.; Williams, A. J.; Larin, N. I.; Kvasha, M. P. Chemosphere 2006, 63, 142-152. (79) Silva, L. M. A.; Filho, E. G. A.; Simpson, A. J.; Monteiro, M. R.; Venancio, T. Fuel 2016, 166, 436-445. (80) Wheeler, H. L.; Soong, R.; Courtier-Murias, D.; Botana, A.; Fortier-Mcgill, B.; Maas, W. E.; Fey, M.; Hutchins, H.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Kumar, R.; Monette, M.; Stronks, H. J.; Campbell, M. M.; Simpson, A. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2015, 53, 735-744. (81) Lam, L.; Soong, R.; Sutrisno, A.; de Visser, R.; Simpson, M. J.; Wheeler, H. L.; Campbell, M.; Maas, W. E.; Fey, M.; Gorissen, A.; Hutchins, H.; Andrew, B.; Struppe, J.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Kumar, R.; Monette, M.; Stronks, H. J.; Hume, A.; Simpson, A. J. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 2014, 62, 107-115. (82) Farooq, H.; Courtier-Murias, D.; Simspon, M. J.; Maas, W. E.; Fey, M.; Andrew, B.; Struppe, J.; Hutchins, H.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Kumar, R.; Monette, M.; Stronks, H. J.; Simpson, A. J. Environ. Chem. 2015, 12, 227-235. (83) Masoom, H.; Courtier-Murias, D.; Farooq, H.; Soong, R.; Kelleher, B. P.; Zhang, C.; Maas, W. E.; Fey, M.; Kumar, R.; Monette, M.; Stronks, H. J.; Simpson, M. J.; Simpson, A. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 1670-1680. (84) Mazzei, P.; Piccolo, A. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2015, 53, 667-678. (85) Guthrie, E. A.; Bortiatynski, J. M.; Van Heemst, J. D. H.; Richman, J. E.; Hardy, K. S.; Kovach, E. M.; Hatcher, P. G. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 33, 119-125. (86) Hatcher, P. G.; Bortiatynski, J. M.; Minard, R. D.; Dec, J.; Bollag, J. M. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1993, 27, 2098-2103. (87) Kohl, S. D.; Toscano, P. J.; Hou, W.; Rice, J. A. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 204-210. (88) Nanny, M. A.; Bortiatynski, J. M.; Hatcher, P. G. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 530-534. (89) Sachleben, J. R.; Chefetz, B.; Deshmukh, A.; Hatcher, P. G. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 43694376. (90) Shirzadi, A.; Simpson, M. J.; Kumar, R.; Baer, A. J.; Xu, Y. P.; Simpson, A. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 5514-5520. (91) Shirzadi, A.; Simpson, M. J.; Xu, Y.; Simpson, A. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 1084-1090. (92) Thorn, K. A.; Goldenberg, W. S.; Younger, S. J.; Weber, E. J. Acs Sym Ser 1996, 651, 299-326. (93) Thorn, K. A.; Kennedy, K. R. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 3787-3796. (94) Sutrisno, A.; Simpson, A. J. eMagRes 2015, 2, 467–476. (95) Mueller, K. T.; Sanders, R. L.; Washton, N. M. eMagRes 2015, 3, 13–28. (96) Mayer, M.; Meyer, B. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 1784-1788. (97) Mazzei, P.; Piccolo, A. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 5939-5946. (98) Longstaffe, J. G.; Courtier-Murias, D.; Soong, R.; Simpson, M. J.; Maas, W. E.; Fey, M.; Hutchins, H.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Struppe, J.; Alaee, M.; Kumar, R.; Monette, M.; Stronks, H. J.; Simpson, A. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 10508-10513. (99) Simpson, A. J.; Courtier-Murias, D.; Longstaffe, J. G.; Masoom, H.; Soong, R.; Lam, L.; Sutrisno, A.; Farooq, H.; Simpson, M. J.; Maas, W. E.; Fey, M.; Andrew, B.; Struppe, J.; Hutchins, H.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Kumar, R.; Monette, M.; Stronks, H. J. eMagRes 2015, 2, 399–414. (100) Nicholson, J. K.; Lindon, J. C.; Holmes, E. Xenobiotica FIELD Full Journal Title:Xenobiotica 1999, 29, 1181-1189. (101) Viant, M. Metabolomics 2009, 5, 1. (102) Viant, M. R. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) 2008, 410, 137. (103) Bundy, J.; Davey, M.; Viant, M. Metabolomics 2009, 5, 3. (104) Lankadurai, B. P.; Nagato, E. G.; Simpson, M. J. Environ. Rev. 2013, 21, 180-205. ACS Paragon Plus Environment

24

Page 25 of 33

1 2 646 3 647 4 648 5 649 6 7 650 8 651 9 652 10653 11654 12 655 13 14656 15657 16658 17659 18 660 19 20661 21662 22663 23664 24665 25 666 26 27667 28668 29669 30670 31 671 32 33672 34673 35674 36675 37676 38 39677 40678 41679 42680 43681 44 682 45 46683 47684 48685 49686 50687 51 52688 53689 54690 55691 56692 57 693 58 59 60


(105) Jones, O. A. H.; Dias, D. A. eMagRes 2014, 3, 1–12. (106) Nagato, E. G.; Simpson, M. J. eMagRes 2017, 6, 315–324. (107) Størseth, T. R.; Hammer, K. M. eMagRes 2013, 2, 541–548. (108) Simpson, M. J.; Bearden, D. W. eMagRes 2013, 2, 549–560. (109) Burton, I. W.; Quilliam, M. A.; Walter, J. A. Anal. Chem. 2005, 77, 3123-3131. (110) Cagliani, A.; Acquoitt, D.; Palla, G.; Bocci, V. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2007, 585, 110-119. (111) Viant, M. R.; Bearden, D. W.; Bundy, J. G.; Burton, I. W.; Collette, T. W.; Ekman, D. R.; Ezernieks, V.; Karakach, T. K.; Lin, C. Y.; Rochfort, S.; Ropp, J. S. d.; Teng, Q.; Tjeerdema, R. S.; Walter, J. A.; Wu, H. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 219-225. (112) Bundy, J. G.; Lenz, E. M.; Bailey, N. J.; Gavaghan, C. L.; Svendsen, C.; Spurgeon, D.; Hankard, P. K.; Osborn, D.; Weeks, J. M.; Trauger, S. A.; Speir, P.; Sanders, I.; Lindon, J. C.; Nicholson, J. K.; Tang, H. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2002, 21, 1966-1972. (113) Yuk, J.; McKelvie, J. R.; Simpson, M. J.; Spraul, M.; Simpson, A. J. Environ. Chem. 2010, 7, 524536. (114) Simpson, A. J.; Liaghati, Y.; Fortier-McGill, B.; Soong, R.; Akhter, M. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2015, 53, 686-690. (115) Li, W. Analyst 2006, 131, 777-781. (116) Gudlavalleti, S. K.; Szymanski, C. M.; Jarrell, H. C.; Stephens, D. S. Carbohydr. Res. 2006, 341, 557-562. (117) Righi, V.; Apidianakis, Y.; Mintzopoulos, D.; Astrakas, L.; Rahme, L. G.; Tzika, A. A. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2010, 26, 175-184. (118) Righi, V.; Apidianakis, Y.; Psychogios, N.; Rahme, L. G.; Tompkins, R. G.; Tzika, A. A. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2014, 34, 327-333. (119) Constantinou, C.; Apidianakis, Y.; Psychogios, N.; Righi, V.; Mindrinos, M. N.; Khan, N.; Swartz, H. M.; Szeto, H. H.; Tompkins, R. G.; Rahme, L. G.; Tzika, A. A. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2016, 37, 299-308. (120) Bon, D.; Gilard, V.; Massou, S.; Peres, G.; Malet-Martino, M.; Martino, R.; Desmoulin, F. Biol. Fert. Soils 2006, 43, 191-198. (121) Bunescu, A.; Garric, J.; Vollat, B.; Canet-Soulas, E.; Graveron-Demilly, D.; Fauvelle, F. Mol. Biosyst. 2010, 6, 121-125. (122) Mobarhan, Y. L.; Fortier-McGill, B.; Soong, R.; Maas, W. E.; Fey, M.; Monette, M.; Stronks, H. J.; Schmidt, S.; Heumann, H.; Norwood, W.; Simpson, A. J. Chem. Sci. 2016, 7, 4856-4866. (123) Mobarhan, Y. L.; Struppe, J.; Fortier-McGill, B.; Simpson, A. J. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2017. (124) Taylor, J. L.; Wu, C. L.; Cory, D.; Gonzalez, R. G.; Bielecki, A.; Cheng, L. L. Magn. Reson. Med. 2003, 50, 627-632. (125) Renault, M.; Shintu, L.; Piotto, M.; Caldarelli, S. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3. (126) Wind, R. A.; Hu, J. Z.; Rommereim, D. N. Magn. Reson. Med. 2003, 50, 1113-1119. (127) Viant, M. R.; Walton, J. H.; Tjeerdema, R. S. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2001, 71, 40-47. (128) Viant, M. R.; Walton, J. H.; TenBrook, P. L.; Tjeerdema, R. S. Aquat. Toxicol. 2002, 57, 139-151. (129) Pincetich, C. A.; Viant, M. R.; Hinton, D. E.; Tjeerdema, R. S. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2005, 140, 103-113. (130) Viant, M. R.; Pincetich, C. A.; Hinton, D. E.; Tjeerdema, R. S. Aquat. Toxicol. 2006, 76, 329-342. (131) Majumdar, R. D.; Akhter, M.; Fortier-McGill, B.; Soong, R.; Liaghati-Mobarhan, Y.; Simpson, A. J.; Spraul, M.; Schmidt, S.; Heumann, H. eMagRes 2017, 6, 133–148. (132) Soong, R.; Nagato, E.; Sutrisno, A.; Fortier-McGill, B.; Akhter, M.; Schmidt, S.; Heumann, H.; Simpson, A. J. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2015, 53, 774-779. (133) Warren, W. S.; Richter, W.; Andreotti, A. H.; Farmer, B. T. Science 1993, 262, 2005-2009. (134) Chen, Z.; Chen, Z. W.; Zhong, J. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 446-447.


25


1 2 694 3 695 4 696 5 697 6 7 698 8 699 9 700 10701 11702 12 703 13 14704 15705 16706 17707 18 708 19 20709 21710 22711 23712 24713 25 714 26 27715 28716 29717 30718 31 719 32 33720 34721 35722 36 37723 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 26 of 33

(135) Chen, Z.; Cai, S. H.; Huang, Y. Q.; Lin, Y. L. Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. 2015, 90-91, 1-31. (136) Hertkorn, N.; Ruecker, C.; Meringer, M.; Gugisch, R.; Frommberger, M.; Perdue, E. M.; Witt, M.; Schmitt-Kopplin, P. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2007, 389, 1311-1327. (137) Zerko, S.; Kozminski, W. J. Biomol. NMR 2015, 63, 283-290. (138) Hedges, J. I. In In Biogeochemistry of Marine Dissolved Organic Matter, Hansell, D. A.; Carlson, C. A., Eds.; Academic Press, 2002, pp 1–33. (139) Landrigan, P. J.; Lambertini, L.; Birnbaum, L. S. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012, 120, A258A260. (140) Voehler, M. W.; Collier, G.; Young, J. K.; Stone, M. P.; Germann, M. W. J. Mag. Reson. 2006, 183, 102-109. (141) Adams, R. W.; Aguilar, J. A.; Atkinson, K. D.; Cowley, M. J.; Elliott, P. I. P.; Duckett, S. B.; Green, G. G. R.; Khazal, I. G.; Lopez-Serrano, J.; Williamson, D. C. Science 2009, 323, 1708-1711. (142) Schymanski, E. L.; Singer, H. P.; Slobodnik, J.; Ipolyi, I. M.; Oswald, P.; Krauss, M.; Schulze, T.; Haglund, P.; Letzel, T.; Grosse, S.; Thomaidis, N. S.; Bletsou, A.; Zwiener, C.; Ibanez, M.; Portoles, T.; de Boer, R.; Reid, M. J.; Onghena, M.; Kunkel, U.; Schulz, W., et al. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2015, 407, 6237-6255. (143) Dixon, W. T.; Schaefer, J.; Sefcik, M. D.; Stejskal, E. O.; Mckay, R. A. J. Mag. Reson. 1982, 49, 341-345. (144) Moore, E.; Tycko, R. J. Mag. Reson. 2015, 260, 1-9. (145) Smernik, R. J.; Oades, J. M. Geoderma 2000, 96, 159-171. (146) Smernik, R. J.; Oades, J. M. Geoderma 2000, 96, 101-129. (147) Johnson, R. L.; Schmidt-Rohr, K. J. Mag. Reson. 2014, 239, 44-49. (148) D’eon, J. C.; Simpson, A. J.; Kumar, R.; Baer, A. J.; Mabury, S. A. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010, 28, 1678-1688. (149) Longstaffe, J. G.; Simpson, M. J.; Maas, W.; Simpson, A. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 5476-5482. (150) Fugariu, I.; Bermel, W.; Lane, D.; Soong, R.; Simpson, A. J. Angew.Chem. Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 6324-6328.


26

Page 33 Table271.ofCommonly used

Description

Comments

Provides highest resolution but only for soluble components2,9. The approach is fully quantitative if collected under appropriate conditions9. For samples with low salt a cryogenically cooled probe can increase signal to noise. Both helium and nitrogen cooled versions are available. For samples with high salt content using small a diameter room temperature probe (1 mm or 1.7 mm) instead of a cryoprobe is a good option, as smaller coils are more salt tolerant. Important for environmental analysis as it provides an overview of the types of carbon in a sample13-15. This sample is spun at magic angle (54.70 to the external field) to narrow line shape and high power 1 H decoupling is required to improve carbon lineshape. The technique can be quantitative but considerable care must be taken if absolute quantification is required.

Probes range from 1 mm (5 µL) to 10 mm (4 mL) in size with 5mm (600 µL) the most common. For 5 mm cryoprobe, detection limit for individual compounds is the in ng range, but as environmental mixtures can contain a large number of components 50-100 mg is recommended (1-D and 2-D NMR). Smaller probes are ideal when sample is mass limited. For masslimited sample 1-3 mg is possible with a 1.7 mm probe. Only use 1 mm probe when there is

Environmental Nuclear Magnetic Resonance ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents