How to report a triplet of septets in NMR tabulation?
5
$begingroup$
Does anyone know the proper format to report an iso-butyl group, eg. $ce{R-CH2-Ccolor{red}{H}(CH3)2}$, in $ce{^1H}$ NMR tabulation? The proton in red should be a triplet of septets, so I've written:
δ 2.72 (d, J = 5.5 Hz, 2H), 1.80 (tsep, J = 5.5, 5.3 Hz, 1H), 1.02 (d, J = 5.3 Hz, 6 H).
Is the use of "tsep" acceptable here?
organic-chemistry nmr-spectroscopy notation
edited yesterday
orthocresol♦
40.1k7115246
asked yesterday
WahWah
283
New contributor
Wah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
Does anyone know the proper format to report an iso-butyl group, eg. $ce{R-CH2-Ccolor{red}{H}(CH3)2}$, in $ce{^1H}$ NMR tabulation? The proton in red should be a triplet of septets, so I've written:
δ 2.72 (d, J = 5.5 Hz, 2H), 1.80 (tsep, J = 5.5, 5.3 Hz, 1H), 1.02 (d, J = 5.3 Hz, 6 H).
Is the use of "tsep" acceptable here?
organic-chemistry nmr-spectroscopy notation
edited yesterday
orthocresol♦
40.1k7115246
asked yesterday
WahWah
283
New contributor
Wah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
5
5
5
$begingroup$
Does anyone know the proper format to report an iso-butyl group, eg. $ce{R-CH2-Ccolor{red}{H}(CH3)2}$, in $ce{^1H}$ NMR tabulation? The proton in red should be a triplet of septets, so I've written:
δ 2.72 (d, J = 5.5 Hz, 2H), 1.80 (tsep, J = 5.5, 5.3 Hz, 1H), 1.02 (d, J = 5.3 Hz, 6 H).
Is the use of "tsep" acceptable here?
organic-chemistry nmr-spectroscopy notation
edited yesterday
orthocresol♦
40.1k7115246
asked yesterday
WahWah
283
New contributor
Wah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Does anyone know the proper format to report an iso-butyl group, eg. $ce{R-CH2-Ccolor{red}{H}(CH3)2}$, in $ce{^1H}$ NMR tabulation? The proton in red should be a triplet of septets, so I've written:
δ 2.72 (d, J = 5.5 Hz, 2H), 1.80 (tsep, J = 5.5, 5.3 Hz, 1H), 1.02 (d, J = 5.3 Hz, 6 H).
Is the use of "tsep" acceptable here?
organic-chemistry nmr-spectroscopy notation
organic-chemistry nmr-spectroscopy notation
edited yesterday
orthocresol♦
40.1k7115246
asked yesterday
WahWah
283
New contributor
Wah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
orthocresol♦
40.1k7115246
asked yesterday
WahWah
283
New contributor
Wah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
orthocresol♦
40.1k7115246
edited yesterday
orthocresol♦
40.1k7115246
edited yesterday
orthocresol♦
40.1k7115246
40.1k7115246
asked yesterday
WahWah
283
New contributor
Wah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
WahWah
283
asked yesterday
WahWah
283
283
New contributor
Wah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Wah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Wah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
6
$begingroup$
I personally use a space, so "t sep" as long as both "t" and "sep" are defined. I think it's slightly clearer than "tsep", but I don't think there's any official adjudication on what's a good or bad acronym.
Also, of some interest to me is how you manage to distinguish 5.5 and 5.3 Hz. If it looks quite like an nonet, I would probably prefer reporting it as an apparent nonet, although different people may have different opinions... I know some groups will have "in-house" rules / guidelines for reporting NMR spectra, so it might be a good idea to check with your supervisor on this front.
answered yesterday
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.1k7115246
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I used to call it heptet, but nowadays, those have changed. For example, now they call all pentets as quintets. :-) About 5.5 vs 5.3, I think OP has been using $pu{400 MHz}$ or bigger machine so they can measure up to $pu{0.01 Hz}$.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
yesterday
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, it's not realistically possible to measure couplings to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz. If you take a 400 MHz machine, a spectral width of 20 ppm (= 8000 Hz), and 64k data points during acquisition (32k real + 32k complex), then the resolution is ~0.25 Hz. Even this is not enough to accurately distinguish a coupling of 5.5 and 5.3 Hz, you can see this for yourself at this website, or using e.g. MestReNova - it is indistinguishable from a perfect nonet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
You would also need to take into consideration linewidth contributions from e.g. field inhomogeneity and relaxation. It's very, very difficult to distinguish two couplings differing by 0.2 Hz.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sure, but computer gives your peak picking to 4 decimal places, so I think OP might think it's okay to report that way without concerning the uncertainty. Nonetheless, I wouldn't report that way in a journal article.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
yesterday
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, sorry, I think I might have misunderstood you, actually; I think it's fair to say that you can measure 5.5 and 5.3 for two different multiplets, i.e. the CH2 and the (CH3)2 signals, although the uncertainty is definitely still there. I was more concerned about the CH peak, where the shape of that multiplet (on its own) won't allow you to extract two different couplings of 0.2 Hz difference from that one multiplet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "431"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Wah is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f112314%2fhow-to-report-a-triplet-of-septets-in-nmr-tabulation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
6
$begingroup$
I personally use a space, so "t sep" as long as both "t" and "sep" are defined. I think it's slightly clearer than "tsep", but I don't think there's any official adjudication on what's a good or bad acronym.
Also, of some interest to me is how you manage to distinguish 5.5 and 5.3 Hz. If it looks quite like an nonet, I would probably prefer reporting it as an apparent nonet, although different people may have different opinions... I know some groups will have "in-house" rules / guidelines for reporting NMR spectra, so it might be a good idea to check with your supervisor on this front.
answered yesterday
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.1k7115246
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I used to call it heptet, but nowadays, those have changed. For example, now they call all pentets as quintets. :-) About 5.5 vs 5.3, I think OP has been using $pu{400 MHz}$ or bigger machine so they can measure up to $pu{0.01 Hz}$.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
yesterday
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, it's not realistically possible to measure couplings to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz. If you take a 400 MHz machine, a spectral width of 20 ppm (= 8000 Hz), and 64k data points during acquisition (32k real + 32k complex), then the resolution is ~0.25 Hz. Even this is not enough to accurately distinguish a coupling of 5.5 and 5.3 Hz, you can see this for yourself at this website, or using e.g. MestReNova - it is indistinguishable from a perfect nonet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
You would also need to take into consideration linewidth contributions from e.g. field inhomogeneity and relaxation. It's very, very difficult to distinguish two couplings differing by 0.2 Hz.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sure, but computer gives your peak picking to 4 decimal places, so I think OP might think it's okay to report that way without concerning the uncertainty. Nonetheless, I wouldn't report that way in a journal article.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
yesterday
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, sorry, I think I might have misunderstood you, actually; I think it's fair to say that you can measure 5.5 and 5.3 for two different multiplets, i.e. the CH2 and the (CH3)2 signals, although the uncertainty is definitely still there. I was more concerned about the CH peak, where the shape of that multiplet (on its own) won't allow you to extract two different couplings of 0.2 Hz difference from that one multiplet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
6
$begingroup$
I personally use a space, so "t sep" as long as both "t" and "sep" are defined. I think it's slightly clearer than "tsep", but I don't think there's any official adjudication on what's a good or bad acronym.
Also, of some interest to me is how you manage to distinguish 5.5 and 5.3 Hz. If it looks quite like an nonet, I would probably prefer reporting it as an apparent nonet, although different people may have different opinions... I know some groups will have "in-house" rules / guidelines for reporting NMR spectra, so it might be a good idea to check with your supervisor on this front.
answered yesterday
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.1k7115246
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I used to call it heptet, but nowadays, those have changed. For example, now they call all pentets as quintets. :-) About 5.5 vs 5.3, I think OP has been using $pu{400 MHz}$ or bigger machine so they can measure up to $pu{0.01 Hz}$.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
yesterday
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, it's not realistically possible to measure couplings to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz. If you take a 400 MHz machine, a spectral width of 20 ppm (= 8000 Hz), and 64k data points during acquisition (32k real + 32k complex), then the resolution is ~0.25 Hz. Even this is not enough to accurately distinguish a coupling of 5.5 and 5.3 Hz, you can see this for yourself at this website, or using e.g. MestReNova - it is indistinguishable from a perfect nonet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
You would also need to take into consideration linewidth contributions from e.g. field inhomogeneity and relaxation. It's very, very difficult to distinguish two couplings differing by 0.2 Hz.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sure, but computer gives your peak picking to 4 decimal places, so I think OP might think it's okay to report that way without concerning the uncertainty. Nonetheless, I wouldn't report that way in a journal article.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
yesterday
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, sorry, I think I might have misunderstood you, actually; I think it's fair to say that you can measure 5.5 and 5.3 for two different multiplets, i.e. the CH2 and the (CH3)2 signals, although the uncertainty is definitely still there. I was more concerned about the CH peak, where the shape of that multiplet (on its own) won't allow you to extract two different couplings of 0.2 Hz difference from that one multiplet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
6
6
6
$begingroup$
I personally use a space, so "t sep" as long as both "t" and "sep" are defined. I think it's slightly clearer than "tsep", but I don't think there's any official adjudication on what's a good or bad acronym.
Also, of some interest to me is how you manage to distinguish 5.5 and 5.3 Hz. If it looks quite like an nonet, I would probably prefer reporting it as an apparent nonet, although different people may have different opinions... I know some groups will have "in-house" rules / guidelines for reporting NMR spectra, so it might be a good idea to check with your supervisor on this front.
answered yesterday
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.1k7115246
$endgroup$
I personally use a space, so "t sep" as long as both "t" and "sep" are defined. I think it's slightly clearer than "tsep", but I don't think there's any official adjudication on what's a good or bad acronym.
Also, of some interest to me is how you manage to distinguish 5.5 and 5.3 Hz. If it looks quite like an nonet, I would probably prefer reporting it as an apparent nonet, although different people may have different opinions... I know some groups will have "in-house" rules / guidelines for reporting NMR spectra, so it might be a good idea to check with your supervisor on this front.
answered yesterday
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.1k7115246
answered yesterday
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.1k7115246
answered yesterday
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.1k7115246
answered yesterday
orthocresol♦orthocresol
40.1k7115246
40.1k7115246
$begingroup$
I used to call it heptet, but nowadays, those have changed. For example, now they call all pentets as quintets. :-) About 5.5 vs 5.3, I think OP has been using $pu{400 MHz}$ or bigger machine so they can measure up to $pu{0.01 Hz}$.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
yesterday
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, it's not realistically possible to measure couplings to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz. If you take a 400 MHz machine, a spectral width of 20 ppm (= 8000 Hz), and 64k data points during acquisition (32k real + 32k complex), then the resolution is ~0.25 Hz. Even this is not enough to accurately distinguish a coupling of 5.5 and 5.3 Hz, you can see this for yourself at this website, or using e.g. MestReNova - it is indistinguishable from a perfect nonet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
You would also need to take into consideration linewidth contributions from e.g. field inhomogeneity and relaxation. It's very, very difficult to distinguish two couplings differing by 0.2 Hz.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sure, but computer gives your peak picking to 4 decimal places, so I think OP might think it's okay to report that way without concerning the uncertainty. Nonetheless, I wouldn't report that way in a journal article.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
yesterday
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, sorry, I think I might have misunderstood you, actually; I think it's fair to say that you can measure 5.5 and 5.3 for two different multiplets, i.e. the CH2 and the (CH3)2 signals, although the uncertainty is definitely still there. I was more concerned about the CH peak, where the shape of that multiplet (on its own) won't allow you to extract two different couplings of 0.2 Hz difference from that one multiplet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I used to call it heptet, but nowadays, those have changed. For example, now they call all pentets as quintets. :-) About 5.5 vs 5.3, I think OP has been using $pu{400 MHz}$ or bigger machine so they can measure up to $pu{0.01 Hz}$.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
yesterday
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, it's not realistically possible to measure couplings to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz. If you take a 400 MHz machine, a spectral width of 20 ppm (= 8000 Hz), and 64k data points during acquisition (32k real + 32k complex), then the resolution is ~0.25 Hz. Even this is not enough to accurately distinguish a coupling of 5.5 and 5.3 Hz, you can see this for yourself at this website, or using e.g. MestReNova - it is indistinguishable from a perfect nonet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
You would also need to take into consideration linewidth contributions from e.g. field inhomogeneity and relaxation. It's very, very difficult to distinguish two couplings differing by 0.2 Hz.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sure, but computer gives your peak picking to 4 decimal places, so I think OP might think it's okay to report that way without concerning the uncertainty. Nonetheless, I wouldn't report that way in a journal article.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
yesterday
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, sorry, I think I might have misunderstood you, actually; I think it's fair to say that you can measure 5.5 and 5.3 for two different multiplets, i.e. the CH2 and the (CH3)2 signals, although the uncertainty is definitely still there. I was more concerned about the CH peak, where the shape of that multiplet (on its own) won't allow you to extract two different couplings of 0.2 Hz difference from that one multiplet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
I used to call it heptet, but nowadays, those have changed. For example, now they call all pentets as quintets. :-) About 5.5 vs 5.3, I think OP has been using $pu{400 MHz}$ or bigger machine so they can measure up to $pu{0.01 Hz}$.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
yesterday
$begingroup$
I used to call it heptet, but nowadays, those have changed. For example, now they call all pentets as quintets. :-) About 5.5 vs 5.3, I think OP has been using $pu{400 MHz}$ or bigger machine so they can measure up to $pu{0.01 Hz}$.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
yesterday
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, it's not realistically possible to measure couplings to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz. If you take a 400 MHz machine, a spectral width of 20 ppm (= 8000 Hz), and 64k data points during acquisition (32k real + 32k complex), then the resolution is ~0.25 Hz. Even this is not enough to accurately distinguish a coupling of 5.5 and 5.3 Hz, you can see this for yourself at this website, or using e.g. MestReNova - it is indistinguishable from a perfect nonet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, it's not realistically possible to measure couplings to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz. If you take a 400 MHz machine, a spectral width of 20 ppm (= 8000 Hz), and 64k data points during acquisition (32k real + 32k complex), then the resolution is ~0.25 Hz. Even this is not enough to accurately distinguish a coupling of 5.5 and 5.3 Hz, you can see this for yourself at this website, or using e.g. MestReNova - it is indistinguishable from a perfect nonet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
You would also need to take into consideration linewidth contributions from e.g. field inhomogeneity and relaxation. It's very, very difficult to distinguish two couplings differing by 0.2 Hz.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
You would also need to take into consideration linewidth contributions from e.g. field inhomogeneity and relaxation. It's very, very difficult to distinguish two couplings differing by 0.2 Hz.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sure, but computer gives your peak picking to 4 decimal places, so I think OP might think it's okay to report that way without concerning the uncertainty. Nonetheless, I wouldn't report that way in a journal article.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
yesterday
$begingroup$
Sure, but computer gives your peak picking to 4 decimal places, so I think OP might think it's okay to report that way without concerning the uncertainty. Nonetheless, I wouldn't report that way in a journal article.
$endgroup$
– Mathew Mahindaratne
yesterday
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, sorry, I think I might have misunderstood you, actually; I think it's fair to say that you can measure 5.5 and 5.3 for two different multiplets, i.e. the CH2 and the (CH3)2 signals, although the uncertainty is definitely still there. I was more concerned about the CH peak, where the shape of that multiplet (on its own) won't allow you to extract two different couplings of 0.2 Hz difference from that one multiplet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
$begingroup$
@MathewMahindaratne, sorry, I think I might have misunderstood you, actually; I think it's fair to say that you can measure 5.5 and 5.3 for two different multiplets, i.e. the CH2 and the (CH3)2 signals, although the uncertainty is definitely still there. I was more concerned about the CH peak, where the shape of that multiplet (on its own) won't allow you to extract two different couplings of 0.2 Hz difference from that one multiplet.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
Wah is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
draft saved
draft discarded
Wah is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Wah is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Wah is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Chemistry Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f112314%2fhow-to-report-a-triplet-of-septets-in-nmr-tabulation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
