Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Spin–Spin Coupling: One-Bond Coupling01:17

Spin–Spin Coupling: One-Bond Coupling

1.0K
Coupling interactions are strongest between NMR-active nuclei bonded to each other, where spin information can be transmitted directly through the pair of bonding electrons. While nuclei polarize their electrons to the opposite spins, the bonding electron pair has opposite spins. Configurations with antiparallel nuclear spins are expected to be lower in energy. When coupling makes antiparallel states more favorable, J is considered to have a positive value. The one-bond coupling constant, 1J,...
1.0K
Spin–Spin Coupling Constant: Overview01:08

Spin–Spin Coupling Constant: Overview

982
In bromoethane, the three methyl protons are coupled to the two methylene protons that are three bonds away. In accordance with the n+1 rule, the signal from the methyl protons is split into three peaks with 1:2:1 relative intensities. The methylene protons appear as a quartet, with the relative intensities of 1:3:3:1.
Qualitatively, any spin plus-half nucleus polarizes the spins of its electrons to the minus-half state. Consequently, the paired electron in the hydrogen–carbon bond must...
982
Spin–Spin Coupling: Three-Bond Coupling (Vicinal Coupling)01:22

Spin–Spin Coupling: Three-Bond Coupling (Vicinal Coupling)

1.1K
Vicinal or three-bond coupling is commonly observed between protons attached to adjacent carbons. Here, nuclear spin information is primarily transferred via electron spin interactions between adjacent C‑H bond orbitals. This generally favors the antiparallel arrangement of spins, so 3J values are usually positive.
The extent of coupling depends on the C‑C bond length, the two H‑C‑C angles, any electron-withdrawing substituents, and the dihedral angle between the...
1.1K
¹H NMR: Interpreting Distorted and Overlapping Signals01:02

¹H NMR: Interpreting Distorted and Overlapping Signals

1.1K
Spin systems where the difference in chemical shifts of the coupled nuclei is greater than ten times J are called first-order spin systems. These nuclei are weakly coupled, and their chemical shifts and coupling constant can generally be estimated from the well-separated signals in the spectrum.
As Δν decreases and the signals move closer, the doublets appear increasingly distorted. The intensities of the inner lines increase at the cost of those of the outer lines as the signals are...
1.1K
Spin–Spin Coupling: Two-Bond Coupling (Geminal Coupling)01:20

Spin–Spin Coupling: Two-Bond Coupling (Geminal Coupling)

1.1K
Two NMR-active nuclei bonded to a central atom can be involved in geminal or two-bond coupling. Geminal coupling is commonly seen between diastereotopic protons in chiral molecules and unsymmetrical alkenes, among others.
The central atom need not be NMR-active because its electrons are affected by the electron polarization of the spin-active atoms. However, spin information is transmitted less effectively than in one-bond coupling, and 2J values are usually weaker than 1J values. The energy of...
1.1K
NMR Spectroscopy: Spin–Spin Coupling01:08

NMR Spectroscopy: Spin–Spin Coupling

1.5K
The spin state of an NMR-active nucleus can have a slight effect on its immediate electronic environment. This effect propagates through the intervening bonds and affects the electronic environments of NMR-active nuclei up to three bonds away; occasionally, even farther. This phenomenon is called spin–spin coupling or J-coupling. Coupling interactions are mutual and result in small changes in the absorption frequencies of both nuclei involved. While nuclei of the same element are involved...
1.5K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Accelerated Screening of Electrolyte Solvents for High Safety Batteries Using Machine Learning.

The journal of physical chemistry. B·2026
Same author

PropMolFlow: property-guided molecule generation with geometry-complete flow matching.

Nature computational science·2026
Same author

Corrigendum: Computational methods for 2D materials: discovery, property characterization, and application design (2017<i>J. Phys.: Condens. Matter</i><b>29</b>473001).

Journal of physics. Condensed matter : an Institute of Physics journal·2025
Same author

Thermodynamic Analysis of Spin Crossover in Molecules and Solid State Materials with pySCO.

The journal of physical chemistry. A·2025
Same author

Removing Orbital-Dependence to Improve Exchange-Correlation Functional Accuracy.

The journal of physical chemistry. A·2025
Same author

Generalized quadratic model for charge transfer.

Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Aug 16, 2025

Spin Saturation Transfer Difference NMR SSTD NMR: A New Tool to Obtain Kinetic Parameters of Chemical Exchange Processes
11:44

Spin Saturation Transfer Difference NMR SSTD NMR: A New Tool to Obtain Kinetic Parameters of Chemical Exchange Processes

Published on: November 12, 2016

18.0K

Mean Value Ensemble Hubbard-U Correction for Spin-Crossover Molecules.

Angel Albavera-Mata1,2, S B Trickey1,3, Richard G Hennig1,2

  • 1Center for Molecular Magnetic Quantum Materials, Quantum Theory Project, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida32611, United States.

The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters
|December 21, 2022
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Accurate spin-crossover energy calculations require Hubbard-U corrections. A new method using ensemble averages for U values improves accuracy for high-throughput screening of spin-crossover molecules.

More Related Videos

Computation of Atmospheric Concentrations of Molecular Clusters from ab initio Thermochemistry
12:11

Computation of Atmospheric Concentrations of Molecular Clusters from ab initio Thermochemistry

Published on: April 8, 2020

8.3K
Line Shape Analysis of Dynamic NMR Spectra for Characterizing Coordination Sphere Rearrangements at a Chiral Rhenium Polyhydride Complex
10:52

Line Shape Analysis of Dynamic NMR Spectra for Characterizing Coordination Sphere Rearrangements at a Chiral Rhenium Polyhydride Complex

Published on: July 27, 2022

2.8K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Aug 16, 2025

Spin Saturation Transfer Difference NMR SSTD NMR: A New Tool to Obtain Kinetic Parameters of Chemical Exchange Processes
11:44

Spin Saturation Transfer Difference NMR SSTD NMR: A New Tool to Obtain Kinetic Parameters of Chemical Exchange Processes

Published on: November 12, 2016

18.0K
Computation of Atmospheric Concentrations of Molecular Clusters from ab initio Thermochemistry
12:11

Computation of Atmospheric Concentrations of Molecular Clusters from ab initio Thermochemistry

Published on: April 8, 2020

8.3K
Line Shape Analysis of Dynamic NMR Spectra for Characterizing Coordination Sphere Rearrangements at a Chiral Rhenium Polyhydride Complex
10:52

Line Shape Analysis of Dynamic NMR Spectra for Characterizing Coordination Sphere Rearrangements at a Chiral Rhenium Polyhydride Complex

Published on: July 27, 2022

2.8K

Area of Science:

  • Computational Chemistry
  • Materials Science
  • Quantum Chemistry

Background:

  • High-throughput screening of spin-crossover (SCO) molecules necessitates accurate electronic structure calculations.
  • Common density functional approximations often require Hubbard U corrections for accurate modeling of SCO phenomena.
  • Existing methods for determining U values, such as linear response on pure spin states, can lead to overcorrection of SCO energies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To develop a more accurate method for calculating Hubbard U values for spin-crossover molecules.
  • To improve the accuracy of spin-crossover energy calculations in high-throughput screening.
  • To establish a set of recommended averaged U values for practical applications.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized a linearly mixed ensemble average spin state as the reference configuration for linear response calculations of U.
  • Validated the proposed method on a standard set of spin-crossover complexes.
  • Employed a generalized gradient approximation (GGA) exchange-correlation functional.

Main Results:

  • Ensemble-averaged U values were consistently smaller than those calculated from pure spin states (low- or high-spin).
  • Adiabatic crossover energies calculated with the ensemble U method were closer to the expected target energy range.
  • Identified similar U corrections for complexes with the same transition metal and oxidation state.

Conclusions:

  • The ensemble average spin state approach effectively resolves the overcorrection issue in Hubbard U calculations for SCO.
  • This methodology provides more accurate adiabatic crossover energies compared to conventional U values.
  • A set of recommended averaged U values is proposed for efficient high-throughput SCO calculations.