Advertisement

Diffusion in Oriented Lamellar Phases by Pulsed NMR

  • Mingjien Chien
  • B. A. Smith
  • E. T. Samulski
  • C. G. Wade

Abstract

The bilayer structure (lamellar phase) of lipid-water and soap-water systems is the subject of considerable research because of the known occurrence of bilayer structures in biological membranes. (l) The nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) line widths in this phase are very broad due to the incomplete motional averaging of the static dipolar interactions. This has until recently precluded the use of NMR spin echo techniques to measure diffusion because spin echo occurrence requires the removal of the static dipolar interactions. DeVries and Berendsen (2) have shown by optical and NMR measurements that the potassium oleate (KO)-water lamellar phase can be oriented between glass plates with the optical axis (along the hydrocarbon chains) perpendicular to the glass plates. They demonstrated that the line width varied as (3 cos2 Ω - 1) where Ω is the angle between the optical axis and the magnetic field. This provided a conclusive demonstration that the broad lines arise from incompletely averaged dipolar interactions which have residual static interactions along the chain direction. In particular, they noted that “the lines got very narrow at the so-called “magic angle” where Ω = 54o44’ and the term (3 cos2 Ω - 1) (and hence the dipolar interactions) becomes very small.

Keywords

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Free Induction Decay Magic Angle Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Measurement Gradient Pulse 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S.J. Singer and G.L. Nicolson, Science 175, 720 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.J. DeVries and H.J.C. Berendsen, Nature 221, 1139 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E.T. Samulski, B.A. Smith, and C.G. Wade, Chem. Phys. Lett. 20, 167 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E.O. Stejskal and J.E. Tanner, J. Chem. Phys. 42, 288 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C.J. Scandella, P. Devaux and H.M. McConnell, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S. 69, 2056 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A.G. Lee, N.J.M. Birdsall, and J.C. Metcalfe, Biochem. 12, 1650 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Chavolin and P. Rigny, J. Chem. Phys. 58, 3999 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A.F. Horwitz, W.J. Horsley and M.P. Klein, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S. 69, 590 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Pincus, Solid State Comm. 7, 415 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 9a.
    J-W. Doane, R. Blinc, and M. Vilfan, Solid State Comm. 11, 1073 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 10.
    E.O. Stejskal, Adv. in Mol. Relax. Processes 3, 27 (1972) and references therein.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mingjien Chien
    • 1
  • B. A. Smith
    • 1
  • E. T. Samulski
    • 1
  • C. G. Wade
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryUniversity of Texas at AustinUSA

Personalised recommendations