Hello all,
First, for introduction, a collaborator for one of our labs is insisting
on using MATCH tubes, for a 100mM salt RNA sample at 600MHz. I had never
heard of these tubes before, so assumed that the issue was compensation
for a lossy sample. I had thus incorrectly assumed that MATCH tubes were
susceptibility matched and shaped to achieve a sensitivity gain and keep
the 90s short. The advantageous use of smaller diameter tubes and
rectangular tubes for lossy samples (>250mM salt) has been well
documented in JMR.
As far as I can tell from the responses, the main advantage to MATCH
tubes is cost. The MATCH tubes are around 40% less expensive than a
regular high quality tube, presumably due to their short height. After
the investment in an adapter (~$160), one would have to use more than 30
tubes per adapter before the savings kicks in. And, I'm guessing that
most would also have to add the cost of a 10mm spinner to accommodate
the adapter. I have no idea whether these adapters will work with the
various automation accessories available. Another advantage pointed out
was that the short MATCH tubes are easier to pipet, (advantageous for
titrations, etc). Maybe one of the Bruker folks following here can
correct my assessment.
And yes, of course the smaller MATCH diameter tubes will give an
advantage with salty samples in terms of shorter 90s. Nothing particular
to MATCH tubes, though.
Overall, it seems that very few people on this list are using MATCH
tubes, or has even heard of them.
Regarding shaped tubes, rectangular tubes with long axis oriented to the
B1 magnetic field compensate for lossy samples, providing a >2X increase
in S/N (depending on [salt]) in addition to reduced 90s. Again, very few
people seem to be using them. First, one needs a cryoprobe equipped with
the positioning system (or a home-built option). And then there is the
high cost: $260 each from Bruker.
Finally, I've also found that the Shigemi tube with the rectangular
shaped sample section mentioned in JMR 2011 209 pp167-173 is available,
it is listed on their website under "What's New" as a "Salt Tolerant"
tube, price $300. The shuttle/spinner required to orient the tube is
$365 from Bruker.
Thank you for all the responses.
Best regards,
Matthew
On 05/15/2013 06:17 PM, Voehler, Markus W wrote:
> Matthew
> I have done some comparisons with the MATCH tubes. Their pulses seem to be very similar to the 4mm tubes with a little more S/N due to the larger volume, but this did not justify the $50 cost per tube and the risk of breaking the little pins on the spinners to align the sample in the probe. Several samples also needed multiple lifts to finally align properly anyway. So we are using mostly the 3mm, sometimes 4mm tubes here in the lab.
> Norell sells the inserts for the 5mm spinners at the following link, but so do most likely others:
> http://www.nmrtubes.com/shop-online.php?c=optimizer&utm_source=BenchmarkEmail&utm_campaign=Sep_28_2011_Optimizer_Insert_North_America&utm_medium=email
>
> Greetings,
> Markus
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 15, 2013, at 3:28 PM, Matthew Devany<mdevany_at_hunter.cuny.edu> wrote:
>
>> Markus,
>>
>> Thank you for your reply. Very nice when you can cite your own work! Hopefully you will be able to see my comments and other JMR citation in the second email that I sent to the list.
>>
>> Have you used the MATCH system at Vanderbilt? If so, is there a big difference between 5, 4 and 3mm MATCH tube performance with salty samples? Any troubles with the MATCH adapters? Any comment on the difference between the MATCH adapters and the older Bruker Shaped Sample Tube system?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Matthew
>>
>> On 05/15/2013 04:10 PM, Voehler, Markus W wrote:
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>> If you have salty, aqueous samples, use either the rectangular Bruker MATCh tubes or just simple 3, 4mm tubes with an adaptor for 5mm spinners (see publication: J.Mag. Res, 183, 102-109 (2006)). The rectangular tube is better optimized for higher S/N, but also more expensive, needs separate spinners and a probe head adaption. Although you work with less volumes with all these samples, the E-field advantage gives you much shorter pulses and relative more sensitivity in all these cases. On the 5mm Shigemi tubes you do not have this E-field advantage and therefore still long pulses in salty solutions. For non-salty solutions, a simple smaller volume with higher concentration could be achieved with smaller tubes or Shigemi.
>>>
>>> Markus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 15, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Matthew Devany<mdevany_at_hunter.cuny.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> I'm soliciting opinions on tubes, specifically shigemi vs. rectangular/Bruker MATCH system. Has anyone out there put these to the test?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance for your always thoughtful and experienced responses. Summary will follow.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Matthew Devany, Ph.D.
>>>> Director NMR Laboratory
>>>> Department of Chemistry
>>>> Hunter College of the City University of New York
>>>> 695 Park Ave., Rm. N1302
>>>> New York, NY 10065
>>>> Office: 212-772-5361
>>>> Lab: 212-772-5337
>>>> Fax: 212-396-6327
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/chemistry/research%20facilities/Matthew/nmr-spectroscopy-facilty
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>>
>> Matthew Devany, Ph.D.
>> Director NMR Laboratory
>> Department of Chemistry
>> Hunter College of the City University of New York
>> 695 Park Ave., Rm. N1302
>> New York, NY 10065
>> Office: 212-772-5361
>> Lab: 212-772-5337
>> Fax: 212-396-6327
>>
>> http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/chemistry/research%20facilities/Matthew/nmr-spectroscopy-facilty
>>
>>
>
--
Matthew Devany, Ph.D.
Director NMR Laboratory
Department of Chemistry
Hunter College of the City University of New York
695 Park Ave., Rm. N1302
New York, NY 10065
Office: 212-772-5361
Lab: 212-772-5337
Fax: 212-396-6327
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/chemistry/research%20facilities/Matthew/nmr-spectroscopy-facilty
Received on Fri May 17 2013 - 06:13:59 MST