Vasconcelos et al.
three NMR parameters: the isotropic chemical shift (δcs), the
quadrupolar constant (C ), and the quadrupolar asymmetry
).
However, 17O NMR is much less popular than 31P NMR
literature must be used with caution when they are considered
out of their initial range of application. In amorphous
systems, the distribution of NMR parameters is often related
Q
(η
Q
2
to a distribution in bond lengths and angles. They are well
1
6
in solid phosphates because of several drawbacks: i) its low
characterized in silicate materials but much less in
phosphates.
γ
natural abundance (0.038%), ii) its low sensitivity ( /2π
)
-
5.7716 MHz/T), and iii) the fact that it shows, even under
First-principles calculations are often carried out as a
complement to the experimental and empirical approaches.
Until recently, the first-principles calculations of O NMR
MAS conditions, a second-order quadrupolar broadening. An
isotopic O enrichment, combined with the use of a very
high magnetic field, can partly circumvent these drawbacks.
Furthermore, modern 2D experiments, that is, the multiple-
1
7
2,3
17
4
parameters had been applied to cluster systems (i.e., isolated
1
7,18
molecules or solid aggregates) in silicates,
aluminosili-
5
,6
19
20,21
quantum MAS
(MQMAS) and the satellite-transition
cates, and phosphates.
These studies reveal that the
7
17
MAS (STMAS), which are dedicated to quadrupolar nuclei
with half-integer spin quantum number, were developed to
eliminate completely the residual second-order quadrupolar
broadening and to give high-resolution spectra. The MQMAS
O quadrupolar parameters depend mainly on the first
coordination sphere surrounding the oxygen. For the chemi-
cal shift parameters, the first coordination sphere is not
sufficient especially in ionic solids where the long-range
electrostatic potential has a large influence. In such systems,
the correct description of the charge density requires an
increasing number of atoms to be defined in the cluster,
resulting in a large increase of the required computational
resources. Different alternatives can be used to circumvent
8
experiment has the advantage of being easy to implement
even if it suffers from a lack of sensitivity of the triple-
quantum excitation and reconversion transfers. STMAS can
yield substantial signal enhancements compared to MQMAS,
but the presence of the first-order quadrupolar interaction in
the satellite transitions imposes a high degree of accuracy
for the magic-angle setting. In recent years, the efficiency
of these sequences has been greatly improved in many ways
such that it is now possible to explore the structure through
2
2
this problem. Di Fiori et al. have proposed an embedding
scheme to take into account the electrostatic potential in
cluster calculations of NMR shielding tensors. Another
approach is to use the 3D periodicity of the solid with
periodic Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations, as
95
9
39
25
10
the NMR study of low-γ nuclei like Mo, K, Mg, and
of course O (for a good review of O NMR developments
1
7
17
23
proposed by Mauri et al. to estimate the solid response to
see ref 11).
the presence of a uniform magnetic field. Later, the Gauge
Including Projector Augmented Waves (GIPAW) approach
1
7
The assignment and interpretation of the O MAS spectra,
even with a good signal-to-noise ratio and the use of high-
resolution sequences at a very high magnetic field, may still
be ambiguous due to the lack of an extensive database of
NMR parameters for this nucleus. If such a O database
exists for a series of organic compounds,
2
4
by Pickard and Mauri added, to this initial development,
2
5
the PAW method. This development gave access to the
all-electron magnetic response in a pseudopotential formal-
1
7
17
ism. This method has been confronted to experimental
O
1
2,13
26
it is much more
NMR for different materials including zeolites, sodium
silicates, crystalline aluminosilicates, calcium alumino-
2
7
28
time demanding to develop such a database for inorganic
materials, as it is specific to the nature of the cationic
2
9
30,31
silicate glasses, and minerals.
1
7
environment. Since the pioneering studies on O solid-state
In the present article, we will show how periodical DFT
14,15
NMR,
empirical assignments have been used to interpret
the NMR response in terms of the local environment.
However, these empirical correlations collected in the
(16) Clark, T. M.; Grandinetti, P. J.; Florian, P.; Stebbins, J. F. Phys. ReV.
B 2004, 70, 064202.
(
17) Clark, T. M.; Grandinetti, P. J. Solid State Nucl. Magn. Reson. 2005,
2
7, 233.
(
(
(
2) Zeyer, M.; Montagne, L.; Kostoj, V.; Palavit, G.; Prochnow, D.; Jaeger,
(18) Xue, X.; Kanzaki, M. Phys. Chem. Minerals 1998, 26, 14.
(19) Kubicki, J.; Toplis, M. Am. Mineral. 2002, 87, 668.
(20) Alam, T. M.; Segall, J. M. J. Mol. Struc.: Theochem 2004, 674, 167.
(21) Cherry, B. R.; Alam, T. M.; Click, C.; Brow, R. K.; Gan, Z. J. Phys.
Chem. B 2003, 107, 4894.
C. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 2002, 311, 223.
3) Flambard, A.; Montagne, L.; Delevoye, L. Chem. Commun. 2006,
3
426.
4) Gan, Z.; Gorkov, P.; Cross, T. A.; Samoson, A.; Massiot, D. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 5634.
(22) Di Fiori, N.; Orendt, A. M.; Caputo, M. C.; Ferraro, M. B.; Facelli,
J. C. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2004, 42, S41.
(
(
5) Frydman, L.; Hardwood, J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 5367.
6) Medek, A.; Harwood, J. S.; Frydman, L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995,
(23) Mauri, F.; Pfrommer, B. G.; Louie, S. G. Phys. ReV. Lett. 1996, 77,
5300.
1
17, 12779.
(
(
7) Gan, Z. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 3242.
(24) Pickard, C. J.; Mauri, F. Phys. ReV. B 2001, 63, 245101.
(25) Blöchl, P. E. Phys. ReV. B 1994, 50, 17953–17979.
(26) Profeta, M.; Mauri, F.; Pickard, C. J. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125,
541–548.
8) Amoureux, J.-P.; Fernandez, C.; Steuernagel, S. J. Magn. Reson. 1996,
A123, 116.
(
9) d’Espinose de Lacaillerie, J.-B.; Barberon, F.; Romanenko, K. V.;
Lapina, O. B.; Le Pollès, L.; Gautier, R.; Gan, Z. J. Phys. Chem. B
(27) Charpentier, T.; Ispas, S.; Profeta, M.; Mauri, F.; Pickard, C. J. J.
Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 4147–4161.
2
005, 109, 14033.
(
10) Dowell, N. G.; Ashbrook, S. E.; Wimperis, S. J. Phys. Chem. B 2004,
(28) Gervais, C.; Profeta, M.; Babonneau, F.; Pickard, C. J.; Mauri, F. J.
Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 13249–13253.
1
08, 13292.
(
(
(
11) Ashbrook, S.; Smith, M. E. Chem. Soc. ReV. 2006, 35, 718.
12) Wu, G. Prog. Nucl. Magn. Spect. 2008, 52, 118.
(29) Benoit, M.; Profeta, M.; Mauri, F.; Pickard, C. J.; Tuckerman, M. E.
J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 6052–6060.
13) Lema ˆı tre, V.; Smith, M. E.; Watts, A. Solid State Nucl. Magn. Reson.
(30) Ashbrook, S. E.; Le Poll e` s, L.; Pickard, C. J.; Berry, A. J.; Wimperis,
S.; Farnan, I. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2007, 9, 1587.
(31) Ashbrook, S. E.; Berry, A. J.; Frost, D. J.; Gregorovic, A.; Pickard,
C. J.; Readman, J. E.; Wimperis, S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129,
13213.
2
004, 26–215.
(
(
14) Schramm, S.; Oldfield, E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106, 2502.
15) Timkem, H. C.; Turner, G. L.; Gilson, J. P.; Welsh, L. B.; Oldfield,
E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1986, 108, 7231.
7328 Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 47, No. 16, 2008