无线电台会影响ＮＭＲ

syflu

 When it comes to polluting the environment, humanity has no equals. This applies to all kinds of spaces, including the electromagnetic ether. What follows is a contribution and a warning from Vanni Piccinotti, : X/ b+ k* _5 O$ d! u0 Q- c: Nan engineer based in Florence, Italy, who has decades of experience / Z: {, U0 i$ U2 h% q' Ywith installing, testing, and servicing NMR and EPR spectrometers. The 6 F/ ?: {1 z8 Y6 A" I* ^& aproblem of RF interference has never been trivial and it keeps slowly but inexorably mounting. The spread of urban areas (combined with the ' s6 Q4 K3 f0 `2 m" W- g/ z9 G Z: qtendency to install MR instruments in those same areas) and the & j# \( Q1 Y# J+ x! J; p& Qmounting maze of wireless technologies penetrating our daily life spell nothing good for the future quality of our NMR signals. With concurrent & R! d i | i- o1 l" a# p" Cprogress in basic sensitivity of the instruments, time might come when environmental RF noise will be the single major obstacle to further progress. But let us hear what Vanni has to say:

syflu

 

Cross-talk between FM Broadcast Radio Transmitters (88-108 MHz) and NMR Spectroscopy: A recent experience

Recently I had to install a 400 MHz (9.4 T) NMR Spectrometer. The system worked fine and, using an Indirect Detection Probe , met quickly , X" X$ o& }" H r# }and effortlessly the specifications. But later on, when the customer 9 Q$ n% r' H {installed a 13C direct detection Probe, the S/N ratio turned out to be * P$ C# O" E4 b5 H# x, P& rquite low and, on top of it, the sensitivity was subject to erratic and very large variations from 50:1 to 130:1 (manufacturer's specs give ! u" c( Z% b" b155:1), without any apparent reason.

Since the nominal 13C observe frequency at 9.4 T is 100,568 ) ^( G# g" {8 BMHz, right in the middle of the range of commercial FM broadcasts, I 9 l. w3 m/ m( c/ j7 X1 v$ }have immediately suspected that the spectrometer was picking up one of % z6 ^, C' i8 I2 Vthose radio stations. In fact, using a cheap FM radio receiver, a strong station was quickly found at 100,60 MHz. At this point, I have connected a simple audio amplifier ending with a loudspeaker to the output BNC of the observe receiver which was there apparently just for this purpose, and all of us were listening to the radio using a 200.000 - W/ Y9 f @ \3 eEuro NMR spectrometer, except that the audio quality was really poor, much worse than from the above-mentioned gadget radio (a shopping mall 3 V. G; D6 a1 u- o- T" B" ?3 o' }gift).

The problem is well known from the old times, when the highest $ k8 Z% u; V% i" Q/ S( b5 b% {1 rfield was 2.45 T and the nominal H1 frequency was close to 100 MHz. One 1 X5 p" @8 W" [0 Oof the first Italian NMR spectroscopists to experience it, back in & Y( u" A' _/ R! @1974, was Prof. L.Lunazzi at University of Bologna, on his brand new Varian XL100 spectrometer, and the radio station was Radio San Luchino, well known to anybody living in Bologna, which broadcasts from the top % v( V: g6 K# n+ l+ Mof the nearby Saint Luca hill. - ^0 K, Z/ b, _3 N. Z" u

The obvious solution is to change the magnetic field, and thus 1 r+ ?' ^! G7 n3 [, nall resonance frequencies, in order to get out of the modulation 2 @, N' V* S! c) w7 ~envelope of the interfering transmitter. But this is not always easy, since the range by which one can move the magnetic field changing just some software parameters is usually limited to a few tens of kHz in the frequency domain. If larger variations are required the poor engineer has to work on the superconducting coils of the magnet, which is a 6 y5 o( |7 F/ ]! @no-trivial job entailing the risk of a total or partial quench.

Bitter experience shows that persuading the involved radio station to change its operating frequency is a time consuming, frustrating, and apparently quite impossible task.

Being well aware of the problem, my preliminary spectrometer 3 I/ z. V) K6 Ychecks always include some blank acquisitions taken before running up the magnet so that there is no chance to observe an NMR signal. The resulting dataset should be pure white noise, without significant & `+ k1 e( c6 Y5 H$ P. K3 nspikes. This was done also in this particular installation but, as ( i- d5 P! h) h- Xusual, in the days following the energization the magnet drifted a bit, # J! X# J) l0 l9 S# q' m) q, ~% pgetting closer to the radio station carrier. Furthermore, the usual 13C 6 ]! x( ^% N8 ospectral widths are quite wide which makes things even worse. Murphy's ! S/ e7 b: b1 e8 YLaw has no exceptions!

But we are just at the beginning of my real troubles. Before putting one's hands on the magnet, one should better know how much, in ( E- _+ g( a0 A p1 Y5 rwhich direction, should the field be moved. I have therefore used a good Spectrum Analyzer (Tektronix model 2710) to check the frequency ) U0 i; @# M2 Q0 l/ [3 Y( F) dspectrum around 100 MHz, ready for the worst. And the worst was what I got! The band was filled with FM signals, evenly spaced by 250 kHz and ( z" |8 a( o. \2 T" `with modulation envelopes as wide as 100 kHz, so that when I got far from one station I started receiving the next one; accounting for % M9 W6 S6 V/ X1 C# Afolding and aliasing effects, there was no chance! The only somewhat $ k, e% F8 z4 D g, ofree region was at 100,120 MHz, but this implied proton frequency of 398.100 MHz. So now the spectrometer is no longer a "400"! 8 Y( M# F1 i& G: j

Before installing a spectrometer, you better get a Spectrum Analyzer and check for the presence of RF fields in the instrument room, taking care to explore the areas close to the observe frequencies & d/ v, ]" n4 H( sof all the most important nuclei. Don't forget the lock: at 14 T (nominal 1H frequency of 600 MHz) 2H resonates at 92,095 MHz, once again in the FM broadcast band. The lock channel receiver has quite narrow bandpass filters, so hitting a radio is a really bad luck, but 3 t9 ], J8 E# D' G$ Hit had already happened, resulting in fast lock level variations and 1 Q+ D9 k. d' }totally malfunctioning Gradient Shimming which uses deuterium as observe nucleus! $ a' I7 d3 e5 W3 u

Needles to say, the extremely high sensitivity of an NMR - j0 k3 j) Y8 T1 V8 @. c1 |Spectrometer shows up. The signal from the guilty radio, as observed on % C4 A4 a5 d2 g# J. Dthe spectrum analyzer inside the spectrometer room, had very low 1 F d$ @ n) d5 n. Z* @4 T) m3 c: ?intensity level of about -70 dBm, some microvolt/meter, but that was enough to almost completely hide the quite strong 13C signal from the ASTM sample!

The radio was clearly picked up by the Probe (closing the 7 C7 @! H" w/ D3 f& sPreamplifier input with a shielded 50 ohm RF load, all signals disappear) but, quite surprisingly, there is almost no shielding effect attributable to the metal body of the magnet, which is after all an d7 A6 W( { R* N: E2 Malmost completely closed cylinder all around the Probe. Most probably a good deal of the signal leaks in through the Shim Coils which are mounted very close to the Probe and, together with their connection cables to the Console, constitute a quite good antenna. % W+ Q- J+ H9 H

Too bad the Shim Coils are essential, and effective shielding of the instrument with a Faraday's cage is always difficult and expensive (it may be almost impossible once the spectrometer is installed). ) m, I- I7 U1 r6 \* z

: K* g* A5 h' Y7 BBefore concluding, let me venture some additional advice based on my experience: - U! k* i* j5 ?& A

2 [* I# K( Z- I( N) m& }5 z= Install the spectrometer in the best shielded room . F; S9 Q- f1 m$ P" z+ A3 }" ^you can get; the best choice is once again in the basement, where you $ e% K6 t/ Q. U5 k, Jhave the whole building above the ceiling and its [grounded] 9 R- D; L# E" L! xfoundations all around the rest, done in iron-reinforced concrete, " `) R+ y. [ @: a1 c$ B7 ramounting to a good Faraday's cage at no extra cost.

= If possible, avoid top floors. If you can't avoid # c! B& _% `+ kgoing upstairs, take a good look out of the window: if you see nearby 1 t' B# K' B- o6 z; o6 d+ Qtransmission antennas, get ready for troubles proportional to their 4 v) _& K2 `/ |2 J7 L* }) idimensions and closeness (to my knowledge, however, mobile telephony . k9 C% U7 ^3 Q1 tantennas cause so far no harm).

# {3 n6 @% Q8 N& x= I'm sure that an exchange of experiences and/or suggestions regarding this matter would help a lot to solve many 2 Z* B5 u& n+ ^4 S( N$ T, B3 eexisting installation problems and prevent ones yet to come. Stan's Blog is an ideal location and, needless to say, I will be absolutely glad to cooperate. . ] D3 m# D6 y# h3 I6 a

Vanni Piccinotti, Firenze, 11 April 2008

摘自stan' NMR Blog.

sunny

see see！