Reaction monitoring via benchtop nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy: A practical comparison of <i>on‐line</i> stopped‐flow and continuous‐flow sampling methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ability for nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy to provide quantitative, structurally rich information makes this spectroscopic technique an attractive reaction monitoring tool. The practicality of NMR for this type of analysis has only increased in the recent years with the influx of commercially available benchtop NMR instruments and compatible flow systems. In this study, we aim to compare 19 F NMR reaction profiles acquired under both on‐line continuous‐flow and stopped‐flow sampling methods, with modern benchtop NMR instrumentation, and two reaction systems: a homogeneous imination reaction and a biphasic activation of a carboxylic acid to acyl fluoride. Reaction trends with higher data density can be acquired with on‐line continuous‐flow analyses, and this work highlights that representative reaction trends can be acquired without any correction when monitoring resonances with a shorter spin–lattice relaxation time ( T 1 ), and with the used flow conditions. On‐line stopped‐flow analyses resulted in representative reaction trends in all cases, including the monitoring of resonances with a long T 1 , without the need of any correction factors. The benefit of easier data analysis, however, comes with the cost of time, as the fresh reaction solution must be flowed into the NMR system, halted, and time must be provided for spins to become polarized in the instrument's external magnetic field prior to spectral measurement. Results for one of the reactions were additionally compared with the use of a high‐field NMR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".