Re-evaluating the data from MS and NMR … Part 3

Pattern recognition is an integral part of the process of structure elucidation. The quicker the elucidator can pick up on the pattern, the faster the elucidation can be accomplished and the less time wasted in elucidating the unknown.

Recap of the problem: The ESI+ MS shows a single [M+H]+ at m/z 102 allowing a maximum carbon count of 8. The 13C NMR shows there to be 12 carbons. How can the data from the MS and NMR present such different results for the same unknown?

The 13C NMR below shows a unique pattern that is not obvious at first. Each 13C signal seems to be paired to a nearby signal of similar peak intensity. The pattern is also noticeable in the 13C DEPT-135 NMR spectrum below.

 

This pairing pattern indicates that the unknown is a mixture at approximately a 1:1 ratio (note: the option of rotamers is also possible but is not being considered for this example). Therefore, instead of 12 carbons for a single unknown compound as perceived earlier, there are 6 carbons per unknown. This interpretation falls in line with what is being suggested by the MS data.

The last piece of the puzzle is to determine why the MS data shows only one molecular ion peak?

Re-evaluating the data from MS and NMR … Part 3

Pattern recognition is an integral part of the process of structure elucidation. The quicker the elucidator can pick up on the pattern, the faster the elucidation can be accomplished and the less time wasted in elucidating the unknown.

Recap of the problem: The ESI+ MS shows a single [M+H]+ at m/z 102 allowing a maximum carbon count of 8. The 13C NMR shows there to be 12 carbons. How can the data from the MS and NMR present such different results for the same unknown?

The 13C NMR below shows a unique pattern that is not obvious at first. Each 13C signal seems to be paired to a nearby signal of similar peak intensity. The pattern is also noticeable in the 13C DEPT-135 NMR spectrum below.

 

This pairing pattern indicates that the unknown is a mixture at approximately a 1:1 ratio (note: the option of rotamers is also possible but is not being considered for this example). Therefore, instead of 12 carbons for a single unknown compound as perceived earlier, there are 6 carbons per unknown. This interpretation falls in line with what is being suggested by the MS data.

The last piece of the puzzle is to determine why the MS data shows only one molecular ion peak?

Re-evaluating the data from MS and NMR … Part 2

Whenever data appear to contradict each other, an instinctive reaction to this problem is to collect more data. Collecting more data can help to understand the problem and/or complicate the matter. Remember the model for Elucidation Evolution? Maximize data extraction (MDE) while minimizing data collection (MDC).

Recap of the problem: The ESI+ MS shows a single [M+H]+ at m/z 102 allowing a maximum carbon count of 8. The 13C NMR shows there to be 12 carbons. How can the data from the MS and NMR present such different results for the same unknown?

The 1H NMR spectrum below is complicated due to significant peak overlap. As such, it does not offer any further insight into the problem.

Is there any data (or a different interpretation) that can assist in deciphering what the unknown is and thus explain why the MS and NMR data appear to contradict each other?

Re-evaluating the data from MS and NMR … Part 2

Whenever data appear to contradict each other, an instinctive reaction to this problem is to collect more data. Collecting more data can help to understand the problem and/or complicate the matter. Remember the model for Elucidation Evolution? Maximize data extraction (MDE) while minimizing data collection (MDC).

Recap of the problem: The ESI+ MS shows a single [M+H]+ at m/z 102 allowing a maximum carbon count of 8. The 13C NMR shows there to be 12 carbons. How can the data from the MS and NMR present such different results for the same unknown?

The 1H NMR spectrum below is complicated due to significant peak overlap. As such, it does not offer any further insight into the problem.

Is there any data (or a different interpretation) that can assist in deciphering what the unknown is and thus explain why the MS and NMR data appear to contradict each other?

Re-evaluating the data from MS and NMR … Part 1

Structure elucidators will routinely use data from multiple techniques such as MS and NMR to build a proposed structure(s). When dealing with data from multiple techniques, the issue may arise that the data seem to contradict each other. In these cases, it is best to step back and re-evaluate the data from a different angle.

The ESI+ MS data below shows a prominent [M+H]+ ion at m/z 102 and its sodiated adduct. The maximum number of carbons possible for the ion is 8 (= 102 / 12). The 13C NMR spectrum below shows 12 carbons signals, all aliphatic and no quaternary carbons.

 

 

Assuming no issues with the instruments, how the data was acquired or how the sample was prepared, the lingering issue is how can the data from the MS and NMR present such different results for the unknown?

Re-evaluating the data from MS and NMR … Part 1

Structure elucidators will routinely use data from multiple techniques such as MS and NMR to build a proposed structure(s). When dealing with data from multiple techniques, the issue may arise that the data seem to contradict each other. In these cases, it is best to step back and re-evaluate the data from a different angle.

The ESI+ MS data below shows a prominent [M+H]+ ion at m/z 102 and its sodiated adduct. The maximum number of carbons possible for the ion is 8 (= 102 / 12). The 13C NMR spectrum below shows 12 carbons signals, all aliphatic and no quaternary carbons.

 

 

Assuming no issues with the instruments, how the data was acquired or how the sample was prepared, the lingering issue is how can the data from the MS and NMR present such different results for the unknown?

Stereochemistry Information from NOESY/ROESY data … Part 2

NOESY, ROESY, COSY and TOCSY are all 2D NMR experiments that sound so similar but offer different pieces of information about the puzzle. When interpreting the NMR data, it is important to understand how the nuclei interact with each other. For example, the presence of a cross peak (a correlation off the diagonal) on a COSY dataset is a result of nuclei coupling through a bond(s) whereas a NOESY dataset measures NOE’s (Nuclear Overhauser Effect) through space regardless of the number of bonds separating the nuclei. An NOE is typically observed for nuclei that are separated no farther than 5 Å apart.

For the enantiomers example shown below, the NOESY and COSY experiments differ in the presence or absence of the cross peaks. A clear difference between the two experiments is the information provided on the diastereotopic protons of the CH2 group.

The NOESY spectrum, also outlined in Part 1, shows 2 correlations at (4.29,1.28) and (4.29,3.13) ppm. There are no NOE's to the proton signal at 2.68 ppm. The DQF-COSY below shows two-bond and three-bond correlations at (4.29,3.13), (4.29,1.28) and (3.13,2.68) ppm. There are no four-bond correlations present as the 4J coupling constants are close to zero.

  

Stereochemistry Information from NOESY/ROESY data … Part 2

NOESY, ROESY, COSY and TOCSY are all 2D NMR experiments that sound so similar but offer different pieces of information about the puzzle. When interpreting the NMR data, it is important to understand how the nuclei interact with each other. For example, the presence of a cross peak (a correlation off the diagonal) on a COSY dataset is a result of nuclei coupling through a bond(s) whereas a NOESY dataset measures NOE’s (Nuclear Overhauser Effect) through space regardless of the number of bonds separating the nuclei. An NOE is typically observed for nuclei that are separated no farther than 5 Å apart.

For the enantiomers example shown below, the NOESY and COSY experiments differ in the presence or absence of the cross peaks. A clear difference between the two experiments is the information provided on the diastereotopic protons of the CH2 group.

The NOESY spectrum, also outlined in Part 1, shows 2 correlations at (4.29,1.28) and (4.29,3.13) ppm. There are no NOE's to the proton signal at 2.68 ppm. The DQF-COSY below shows two-bond and three-bond correlations at (4.29,3.13), (4.29,1.28) and (3.13,2.68) ppm. There are no four-bond correlations present as the 4J coupling constants are close to zero.