Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Spectroscopy is the backbone of analytical chemistry—it's how we answer the fundamental questions of what's in this sample? and how much is there? You're being tested not just on knowing that UV-Vis measures absorbance or that NMR detects nuclear spin, but on understanding which technique solves which analytical problem. Exams love to present you with an unknown sample scenario and ask you to justify your method selection, so you need to think like an analyst, not a memorizer.
These techniques divide neatly by what they probe: electronic transitions, molecular vibrations, nuclear environments, or mass-to-charge ratios. Each approach reveals different structural information and has distinct sensitivity and selectivity trade-offs. Don't just memorize instrument names—know what physical phenomenon each technique exploits and when you'd reach for one over another.
These methods probe how electrons move between energy levels when molecules absorb or emit light. The energy gap between electronic states determines which wavelengths interact with your sample.
Compare: UV-Vis vs. Fluorescence—both probe electronic transitions, but UV-Vis measures absorption while fluorescence measures emission. Fluorescence offers 100–1000× greater sensitivity but requires your analyte to be fluorescent. If an FRQ asks about detecting trace concentrations of a fluorescent compound, fluorescence wins every time.
These methods detect molecular vibrations—stretching, bending, and rotating of chemical bonds. Different functional groups vibrate at characteristic frequencies, creating a molecular fingerprint.
Compare: IR vs. Raman—both reveal vibrational information, but they follow different selection rules. Symmetric stretches (like in alkenes) are Raman-active but IR-inactive. Use IR for polar bonds with strong dipole changes; use Raman for aqueous samples or symmetric molecules.
NMR exploits the quantum mechanical property of nuclear spin to reveal atomic environments and molecular connectivity. Nuclei in magnetic fields absorb radiofrequency radiation at frequencies determined by their chemical environment.
Compare: NMR vs. IR—both provide structural information, but NMR reveals atom connectivity and environment while IR identifies functional groups. For determining whether you have an aldehyde vs. ketone, IR shows stretch in both, but NMR distinguishes them by the aldehyde proton signal around 9–10 ppm.
Mass spectrometry separates ions by their mass-to-charge ratio, providing molecular weight and structural fragmentation data. Ionization creates charged species that are sorted by their response to electric and magnetic fields.
Compare: MS vs. NMR for structure determination—MS gives molecular weight and fragmentation clues quickly, while NMR provides detailed connectivity. For unknowns, MS tells you what mass you're dealing with; NMR tells you how atoms are arranged. Most structure elucidation problems require both.
These methods analyze elemental composition by exciting or absorbing light at the atomic level. Atoms have discrete energy levels, so each element produces characteristic spectral lines.
Compare: AAS vs. AES—absorption measures what's taken in, emission measures what's given off. AAS offers superior sensitivity for single elements; AES (especially ICP-AES) provides faster multi-element screening. For regulatory testing of one specific metal, choose AAS; for comprehensive elemental surveys, choose ICP-AES.
X-ray methods probe deeper into atomic structure, revealing elemental composition and crystalline arrangements through high-energy radiation interactions.
Compare: XRF vs. AAS for elemental analysis—XRF is non-destructive and requires minimal sample prep but has higher detection limits. AAS destroys the sample but reaches ppb sensitivity. For precious artifacts, use XRF; for trace contamination analysis, use AAS.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Electronic transitions | UV-Vis, Fluorescence |
| Molecular vibrations | IR, Raman |
| Nuclear environments | NMR |
| Mass-to-charge separation | MS |
| Atomic absorption/emission | AAS, AES |
| Elemental composition | XRF, AAS, ICP-AES |
| Structural elucidation | NMR, MS, IR |
| Trace analysis (high sensitivity) | Fluorescence, AAS, MS |
| Non-destructive analysis | Raman, XRF, XRD |
| Quantitative analysis | UV-Vis (Beer-Lambert), AAS, MS |
Which two vibrational spectroscopy techniques have complementary selection rules, and what determines whether a vibration is active in each?
You need to identify an unknown organic compound's functional groups AND determine how many equivalent protons it contains. Which two techniques would you use, and what specific information does each provide?
Compare AAS and ICP-AES: under what analytical scenario would you choose each, and why?
A sample contains a fluorescent compound at nanomolar concentration. Why would fluorescence spectroscopy outperform UV-Vis for this analysis, even though both probe electronic transitions?
An FRQ asks you to propose a method for determining both the molecular weight and the carbon-hydrogen framework of an unknown organic molecule. Outline which techniques you'd use and what each contributes to solving the structure.