Nuclear Dipole Moments and Shielding Constants of Light Nuclei Measured in Magnetic Fields

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article reviews nuclear dipole moments and shielding constants of light nuclei measured in magnetic fields. The authors reviewed methods to measure the nuclear dipole moments, with recent experimental results and theoretical predictions. However, for this review article to be helpful to the community, the manuscript in its current state needs to be more comprehensive and therefore has to be revised significantly. Below are some suggestions and comments.

 

1)    Since all three methods (NMR, molecular beam, and Penning trap) are mentioned in the abstract and the introductory part, it is recommended to have the molecular beam and Penning trap methods explained in a separate subsection in Section 2. A diagram comparing the three methods will be helpful as well.

 

2)    Similarly, a generic overview of how these magnetic moments are predicted or calculated needs to be included. Simply stating that the theory and the experiment disagree is insufficient in such a review article.

 

3)    Regarding the theory-experiment comparison, the authors can also provide a more systematic comparison of values. For instance, in Fig. 1, some species have better agreements than others. Is there any trend one can identify?

 

4)    Some of the tables need to be completed: some of the entries are blank in Tab. 2, Tab. 5, Tab. 6, Tab. 7, and Tab. 8. I am not sure if it is because the data is unavailable or it has been forgotten. The way the values are referenced could be more consistent. Some have reference numbers like [XX] and [YY] included, and some use footnotes like a [XX], and b[YY]. In Tab. 8, there are several rows with more than one predicted value, but only one reference is given.

 

5)    Choice of reference. It is a common practice to use results from established peer-reviewed articles (for example, but not limited to, Phys. Rev. Lett. and Phys. Rev. C for nuclear physics). Reference 63 is not a peer-reviewed article but a book for leisure reading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is an interesting review about the determination of nuclear magnetic moments comparing theory with experiments. I have no further comments since the paper is already suitable for publication in Magnetochemistry Journal in the current form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. Thank you for your review of our manuscript: "Nuclear dipole moments and shielding constants of light nuclei measured in magnetic fields" and positive evaluation on it.

Regards,

Włodzimierz Makulski

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is a review on magnetic shielding constants in light nuclei. This subject is essential for the broader NMR community, hence, worth a publication. The text, however, needs to be corrected for mistakes in basic equations, etc.

 

line 31:

The authors mean to quote the magnetic moment of the electron, which is indeed done on line 32. The halved g-factor in line: (1) is not a moment, (2) is redundant, (3) does not correspond with the latest value of the Bohr magneton, (4) has no reference. Quote one of the other, but not both.

 

line 33:

The magnetic moments of the proton and the electron have opposite signs, therefore, “larger” is literally wrong; “larger in magnitude” would be correct.

 

line 34:

The magnetic moment of the proton is large, but certainly not “one of the largest nuclear moments”. The orbital motion of the proton also produces a magnetic moment…

 

line 34:

The statement “This feature leads to…” is wrong. NMR frequencies change due to the magnetic field induced by the orbital motion of electrons, i.e., “magnetic shielding”.

 

line 44:

The inline equation for the magnetic moment defines Ix to be the nuclear spin in units m.m.kg/s. Elsewhere it is a dimensionless quantity (see below). The easiest fix is to remove the reduced Planck constant.

 

line 55:

In the inline equation, right part, Ix is the nuclear spin in units of h bar, which would be fine if the above correction is made. Otherwise a different notation is needed.

 

line 55:

In the inline equation, middle part, h must be h bar.

 

Table 1:

Time has units. What is the unit for the deuteron?

 

line 85:

modern -> contemporary

 

line 109:

The beta-MNR is a decades-old technique. The original work, if known, may also be referenced.

 

line 113:

References for the lithium and boron would be appropriate.

 

line 149-158:

Equation 1 must be removed along with the entire paragraph preceding it. An obvious problem is the confusion of a magnetic moment and a g-factor in line 150. Equation 2 is fully sufficient.

 

line 169-170:

The inline equations in line 169 and 170 are contradictory. Furthermore, “correction factors” are defined with relation to two isotopes. Individual shielding factors 1/(1-sigma) are more appropriate.

 

Table 2:

What are those “correction factors” in the fourth column? These are certainly not the quantity defined in line 169. Could these be shielding factors? How are those calculated from the data, for instance in Ref. [22]?

 

line 230:

Remove the number of days in the brackets, it is redundant, but even worse, the dot indicates that the half-life is only 4 days…

 

line 239:

One could quote a newer version of codata.

 

Table 3:

What is the meaning of the “correction factor” this time? Where is it defined?

 

Figures 1 and 2:

What is the purpose of these figures?

 

line 442-453

What is the purpose of this paragraph? It contains wrong statements with regard to nuclear physics, such as: “filling the entire neutron shell leads to a higher nuclear magnetic moment”. Better delete it.

 

Revision is strongly recommended before publication. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I read the revised version and thought it was much improved, especially on the methodology part, where all three methods (NMR, molecular beam, and Penning trap) are adequately described. Most of the values in tables and references to them are also being updated accordingly.  Discussions on possible reasons for the experiment-theory discrepancies are also provided. Hence, the authors have taken most of my suggestions, so I do not have further comments.