M.A. Tarpan

For the analysis of the angular dependence of electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectra of low-symmetry centres with S = 1/2 in three independent planes, it is well-established—but often overlooked—that an ambiguity may arise in the best-fit tensor result. We investigate here whether a corresponding ambiguity also arises when determining the hyperfine coupling (HFC) tensor for nuclei with I = 1/2 from angular dependent electron nuclear double resonance (ENDOR) measurements. It is shown via a perturbation treatment that for each set of MS ENDOR branches two best-fit tensors can be derived, but in general only one unique solution simultaneously fits both. The ambiguity thus only arises when experimental data of only one MS multiplet are used in analysis or in certain limiting cases. It is important to realise that the ambiguity occurs in the ENDOR frequencies and therefore the other best-fit result for an ENDOR determined tensor depends on various details of the ENDOR experiment: the MS state of the fitted transitions, the microwave frequency (or static magnetic field) in the ENDOR measurements and the rotation planes in which data have been collected. The results are of particular importance in the identification of radicals based on comparison of theoretical predictions of HFCs with published literature data. A procedure for obtaining the other best-fit result for an ENDOR determined tensor is outlined.

Stable free radical formation in fructose single crystals X-irradiated at room temperature was investigated using Q-band electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), electron nuclear double resonance (ENDOR), and ENDOR induced EPR (EIE) techniques. ENDOR angular variations in the three main crystallographic planes allowed an unambiguous determination of 12 proton HFC tensors. From the EIE studies, these hyperfine interactions were assigned to six different radical species, labeled F1−F6. Two of the radicals (F1 and F2) were studied previously by Vanhaelewyn et al. [Vanhaelewyn, G. C. A. M.; Pauwels, E.; Callens, F. J.; Waroquier, M.; Sagstuen, E.; Matthys, P. J. Phys. Chem. A 2006, 110, 2147.] and Tarpan et al. [Tarpan, M. A.; Vrielinck, H.; De Cooman, H.; Callens, F. J. J. Phys. Chem. A 2009, 113, 7994.]. The other four radicals are reported here for the first time and periodic density functional theory (DFT) calculations were used to aid their structural identification. For the radical F3 a C3 carbon centered radical with a carbonyl group at the C4 position is proposed. The close similarity in HFC tensors suggests that F4 and F5 originate from the same type of radical stabilized in two slightly different conformations. For these radicals a C2 carbon centered radical model with a carbonyl group situated at the C3 position is proposed. A rather exotic C2 centered radical model is proposed for F6.