Low-field NMR has received increasing attention in recent years, especially with respect to nuclear hyperpolarization [1–8]. The combination of both methods seems appealing because: (i) hyperpolarization (over) compensates lacking signal at low field [9–16], (ii) some hyperpolarization techniques necessitate low-field NMR for spin-order transfer (SOT) [17–19], and (iii) low-field MR systems are much less hardware-demanding and cost-intensive than high-field systems. The combination of these technologies holds great potential for biomedical research, including in vivo imaging and detection of targeted markers, but without the need of superconducting magnets and extensive infrastructure. Entirely new applications like portable diagnostic devices may emerge. At this time, only few low-field NMR systems have been described, each tailored to a very specific application, e.g. hyperpolarized gases [4, 5], prepolarized solutions [2, 3] or a relatively high field [20].

Most reports describe signal detected from samples with large, non-equilibrium polarization. No detection of thermal 1H signal was reported below 4.5 mT [7]; 1 6 mT, though, is exactly the range where most pH2-based 13C - hyperpolarization experiments were carried out [17–19, 21–23], and the highest signal amplification by reversible exchange (SABRE) was predicted and demonstrated [24–26]. A dedicated NMR detection system to aid pH2-based hyperpolarization experiments at 1 - 6 mT was not yet described. The requirements for such a device to perform PASADENA (Parahydrogen and synthesis allows dramatically enhanced nuclear alignment) / PHIP (parahydrogen induced hyperpolarization) [17, 27–29] are the following (a-c)

(a) Both methods require a homogeneous, low magnetic field (B0) e.g. 1.8 mT or 6 mT for effective hyperpolarization. It was shown that low-field spin order transfer 13C hyperpolarization suffers from B0 instability [22], and SABRE is strongly dependent on the field strength [24, 25]. (b) To transfer the spin order from pH2 to another nuclei at low field [17, 18, 30], exact manipulations of 1H and X nuclei is needed. Inaccurate B1 decreases the polarization yield and may cause complete loss, as was shown in theory [31] and experimentally [22, 23]. (c) Previously, a sample was hyperpolarized at low field and transported to a high field magnet for quantification in tens of seconds [19, 21, 22, 24]. The great range of magnetic fields encountered during transport, however, disturbs the quantification and may annihilate the polarization completely [32]. These issues are avoided by direct detection and quantification of a hyperpolarized sample at low field. For absolute quantification, detection of hyperpolarized samples as well as sufficient sensitivity for samples in thermal equilibrium at low field is required.

Apart from hyperpolarization, low-field NMR offers insight into low-frequency MR physics and may be used for educational purposes, as such devices provide a much closer access to the underlying physics and are much more cost effective when it comes to hands-on training.

The aim of this project is three-fold: to advance low-field MR technology, to enable thermal mT NMR and to aid pH2-based hyperpolarization. Specifically, we designed a low-field NMR apparatus based on a transmit-only pH2-polarizer [18, 23] which

1. is suitable for NMR of ul to a few ml solution volumes at low mT fields, 2. allows precise manipulations of the spins i.e. flip angle, 3. is sufficiently sensitive and flexible for moderately complex low-field NMR experiments (pulses of arbitrary frequency and shape followed by a detection interval), 4. is easy to construct, to reproduce and cost-effective, 5. is suited for educational purposes and 6. addresses the needs of parahydrogen based hyperpolarization as laid out above.

References

1. Savukov IM, Seltzer SJ, Romalis MV (2007) Detection of NMR signals with a radio-frequency atomic magnetometer. J Magn Reson 185(2): 214–220
2. Asfour A, Hyacinte J-N, Leviel J-L (2006) Development of a Fully Digital and Low-frequency NMR System for Polarization Measurement of Hyperpolarized Gases. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference, pp 1839 –1843
3. Asfour A (2008) A new DAQ-based and versatile low-cost NMR spectrometer working at very-low magnetic field (4.5 mT): a palette of potential applications. In: IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference Proceedings, pp 697 –701
4. Parnell SR, Boag S, McKetterick TJ, Wild JM (2011) Low magnetic field manipulation of 3He spins using digital methods. J Phys: Conf Ser 294: 012010
5. Parnell SR, Woolley EB, Boag S, Frost CD (2008) Digital pulsed NMR spectrometer for nuclear spin-polarized 3He and other hyperpolarized gases. Meas Sci Technol 19(4): 045601
6. McDermott R, Trabesinger AH, Mück M, Hahn EL, Pines A, Clarke J (2002) Liquid-State NMR and Scalar Couplings in Microtesla Magnetic Fields. Science 295(5563): 2247–2249
7. Glöggler S, Blümich B, Appelt S (2012) NMR Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis at Low Magnetic Fields. In: Topics in Current Chemistry, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, pp 1–22
8. Appelt S, Kühn H, Häsing FW, Blümich B (2006) Chemical analysis by ultrahigh-resolution nuclear magnetic resonance in the Earth’s magnetic field. Nat Phys 2(2): 105–109
9. Bouchiat MA, Carver TR, Varnum CM (1960) Nuclear Polarization in He3 Gas Induced by Optical Pumping and Dipolar Exchange. Phys Rev Lett 5(8): 373–375
10. Bachert P, Schad LR, Bock M, Knopp MV, Ebert M, Grobmann T, Heil W, Hofmann D, Surkau R, Otten EW (1996) Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of airways in humans with use of hyperpolarized 3He. Magn Reson Med 36(2): 192–196
11. Ruset IC, Ketel S, Hersman FW (2006) Optical Pumping System Design for Large Production of Hyperpolarized ^{129}Xe. Phys Rev Lett 96(5): 053002
12. Schröder L, Lowery TJ, Hilty C, Wemmer DE, Pines A (2006) Molecular Imaging Using a Targeted Magnetic Resonance Hyperpolarized Biosensor. Science 314(5798): 446–449
13. Abragam A, Goldman M (1978) Principles of Dynamic Nuclear-Polarization. Rep Prog Phys 41(3): 395–467
14. Comment A, Rentsch J, Kurdzesau F, Jannin S, Uffmann K, van Heeswijk RB, Hautle P, Konter JA, van den Brandt B, van der Klink JJ (2008) Producing over 100 ml of highly concentrated hyperpolarized solution by means of dissolution DNP. J Magn Reson 194(1): 152–155
15. Batel M, Krajewski M, Weiss K, With O, Däpp A, Hunkeler A, Gimersky M, Pruessmann KP, Boesiger P, Meier BH, Kozerke S, Ernst M (2012) A multi-sample 94 GHz dissolution dynamic-nuclear-polarization system. J Magn Reson 214(0): 166–174
16. Ardenkjær-Larsen JH, Fridlund B, Gram A, Hansson G, Hansson L, Lerche MH, Servin R, Thaning M, Golman K (2003) Increase in signal-to-noise ratio of > 10,000 times in liquid-state NMR. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(18): 10158–10163
17. Goldman M, Johannesson H (2005) Conversion of a proton pair para order into C-13 polarization by rf irradiation, for use in MRI. C R Physique 6(4-5): 575–581
18. Goldman M, Johannesson H, Axelsson O, Karlsson M (2006) Design and implementation of C-13 hyperpolarization from para-hydrogen, for new MRI contrast agents. C R Chimie 9(3-4): 357–363
19. Kadlecek S, Vahdat V, Nakayama T, Ng D, Emami K, Rizi R (2011) A simple and low-cost device for generating hyperpolarized contrast agents using parahydrogen. NMR Biomed 24(8): 933–942
20. Waddell KW, Coffey AM, Chekmenev EY (2011) In Situ Detection of PHIP at 48 mT: Demonstration Using a Centrally Controlled Polarizer. J Am Chem Soc 133(1): 97–101
21. Chekmenev EY, Hövener J-B, Perman WH, Weitekamp DP, Ross BD, Bhattacharya P (2008) PASADENA hyperpolarization of succinic acid for brain tumor imaging. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Brain Tumor Association, Chicago, IL, USA,
22. Hövener J-B, Chekmenev EY, Harris KC, Perman WH, Tran TT, Ross BD, Bhattacharya P (2009) Quality assurance of PASADENA hyperpolarization for 13C biomolecules. Magn Reson Mater Phy 22(2): 123–134
23. Hövener J-B, Chekmenev E, Harris K, Perman W, Robertson L, Ross B, Bhattacharya P (2009) PASADENA hyperpolarization of 13C biomolecules: equipment design and installation. Magn Reson Mater Phy 22(2): 111–121
24. Dücker EB, Kuhn LT, Münnemann K, Griesinger C (2012) Similarity of SABRE field dependence in chemically different substrates. J Magn Reson 214(0): 159–165
25. Adams RW, Duckett SB, Green RA, Williamson DC, Green GGR (2009) A theoretical basis for spontaneous polarization transfer in non-hydrogenative parahydrogen-induced polarization. J Chem Phys 131(19): 194505–194505–15
26. Adams RW, Aguilar JA, Atkinson KD, Cowley MJ, Elliott PIP, Duckett SB, Green GGR, Khazal IG, López-Serrano J, Williamson DC (2009) Reversible Interactions with para-Hydrogen Enhance NMR Sensitivity by Polarization Transfer. Science 323(5922): 1708–1711
27. Bowers CR, Weitekamp DP (1986) transformation of symmetrization order to nuclear-spin magnetization by chemical-reaction and nuclear-magnetic-resonance. Phys Rev Lett 57(21): 2645–2648
28. Bowers CR, Weitekamp DP (1987) Para-Hydrogen and Synthesis Allow Dramatically Enhanced Nuclear Alignment. J Am Chem Soc 109(18): 5541–5542
29. Natterer J, Bargon J (1997) Parahydrogen induced polarization. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc 31: 293–315
30. Kadlecek S, Emami K, Ishii M, Rizi R (2010) Optimal transfer of spin-order between a singlet nuclear pair and a heteronucleus. J Magn Reson 205(1): 9–13
31. Bär S, Lange T, Leibfritz D, Hennig J, Elverfeldt DV, Hövener J-B On the Spin-order transfer from parahydrogen to another nucleus. J Magn Reson in press, DOI 10.1016/j.jmr.2012.08.016
32. Hövener J-B (2008) Strategies to prolong the T1 time of hyperpolarized molecules. In: Proceedings of the 16th scientific meeting, International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Toronto, Canada, p 336
33. Friebolin H Ein Und Zwei Dim Nmr Spektroskopie 3 Auflage. Wiley-VCH (1999)
34. Levitt MH Spin Dynamics. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Chichester, GB (2007)
35. Golman K, Axelsson O, Jóhannesson H, Månsson S, Olofsson C, Petersson J s. (2001) Parahydrogen-induced polarization in imaging: Subsecond 13C angiography. Magn Reson Med 46(1): 1–5
36. Hoult DI (2009) The origins and present status of the radio wave controversy in NMR. Concept Magn Reson A 34A(4): 193–216