Are there any organic compounds without carbon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ldv1452
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Compounds Organic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of organic compounds and whether any can exist without carbon. Participants explore the distinctions between organic and inorganic compounds, the historical context of these definitions, and the implications for the study of chemistry.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that by definition, organic compounds are carbon compounds, while noting that not all carbon compounds are classified as organic (e.g., carbides and carbon oxides).
  • Others argue that the distinction between organic and inorganic compounds is largely arbitrary and based on tradition, with exceptions like carbon oxides and carbides being considered inorganic.
  • A historical perspective is provided regarding the vitalism debate of the 19th century, which influenced the understanding of organic substances and their synthesis from inorganic materials.
  • Participants discuss the focus of organic chemistry versus inorganic chemistry, suggesting that the study of certain carbon compounds may fall under either category depending on the context and aspects being examined.
  • There is an acknowledgment of the complexity of the definitions and classifications, with some participants expressing gratitude for the clarifications provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that organic compounds are defined by their carbon content, but there is no consensus on the implications of this definition or the classification of certain carbon compounds as organic or inorganic. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the boundaries of these classifications.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in definitions and the historical context that influences current understanding. The distinctions made are not universally accepted and depend on specific contexts within the study of chemistry.

ldv1452
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Are there any compounds that are considered "organic," yet do not contain carbon?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Nope. By definition organic compounds are carbon compounds. Although not all carbon compounds are considered organic. (e.g. carbides and carbon oxides)
 
alxm said:
Nope. By definition organic compounds are carbon compounds. Although not all carbon compounds are considered organic. (e.g. carbides and carbon oxides)

So how does one determine which carbon compounds are organic? What makes carbides and carbon oxides organic?
 
(Welcome to PF by the way..)

No, I meant carbides and carbon oxides as examples of carbon compounds that are considered inorganic.
The distinction is arbitrary and has no actual physical meaning, it's basically just tradition.
The general definition is that all carbon compounds are organic, with a few exceptions such as carbon oxides, carbonic acid, carbides, and (often) urea.

The history here is the old 'vitalism' debate from the early 19th century, when it was believed that the molecules of living things (i.e. 'organic molecules') were somehow fundamentally different from other ones, and that 'organic' matter could not be produced from 'inorganic' matter. We now know these ideas have no merit. This is usually dated to when Wöhler (1828) managed to synthesize urea from inorganic substances. Urea was back then considered 'organic' within vitalist theory, as a substance produced by living things. So Wöhler was the first to show that 'organic' substances were indeed not fundamentally different. (Although, as I said, in modern nomenclature urea isn't usually considered 'organic' anymore.) Of course, now we know that all the carbon in living things actually comes ultimately from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere via photosynthesis. (and CO2 was always considered inorganic) So really, all organic substances come from 'inorganic' ones.

The distinction today is mostly upheld because organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry are different fields with rather different focuses.
 
Last edited:
alxm said:
(Welcome to PF by the way..)

No, I meant carbides and carbon oxides as examples of carbon compounds that are considered inorganic.
The distinction is arbitrary and has no actual physical meaning, it's basically just tradition.
The general definition is that all carbon compounds are organic, with a few exceptions such as carbon oxides, carbonic acid, carbides, and (often) urea.

The history here is the old 'vitalism' debate from the early 19th century, when it was believed that the molecules of living things (i.e. 'organic molecules') were somehow fundamentally different from other ones, and that 'organic' matter could not be produced from 'inorganic' matter. We now know these ideas have no merit. This is usually dated to when Wöhler (1828) managed to synthesize urea from inorganic substances. Urea was back then considered 'organic' within vitalist theory, as a substance produced by living things. So Wöhler was the first to show that 'organic' substances were indeed not fundamentally different. (Although, as I said, in modern nomenclature urea isn't usually considered 'organic' anymore.) Of course, now we know that all the carbon in living things actually comes ultimately from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere via photosynthesis. (and CO2 was always considered inorganic) So really, all organic substances come from 'inorganic' ones.

The distinction today is mostly upheld because organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry are different fields with rather different focuses.

Sorry for the typo. I understood that you meant inorganic in the first reply.

Thanks for the well written response. This makes a lot more sense now. It definitely helps to know the history. I just have one more question about this. I know organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon, so in the study of organic chemistry does that include those carbon compounds that are considered "inorganic"? Or would those fall under the study of inorganic chemistry?
 
ldv1452 said:
I know organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon, so in the study of organic chemistry does that include those carbon compounds that are considered "inorganic"? Or would those fall under the study of inorganic chemistry?

It's more about what aspects you're studying and how, than it is about which compounds. For instance, if you're studying decarboxylation reactions, which typically produce CO2, then that's typical organic chemistry, even if CO2 is an inorganic molecule. If you're studying the properties of metal ions bound to organic complexes (metallorganic chemistry), that's still typically under the umbrella of inorganic chemistry.

Organic chemistry tends to focus on synthesizing and studying the properties of new organic substances, and finding new methods of synthesis. Inorganic chemistry is often focused on studying details of relatively well-known substances. You could say that from biochemistry to organic chemistry to inorganic chemistry, you deal with increasingly simple molecules, but studied in increasingly great detail.
 
The first paragraphs of organic compound and inorganic compound on Wiki go into this a little.
 
alxm said:
It's more about what aspects you're studying and how, than it is about which compounds. For instance, if you're studying decarboxylation reactions, which typically produce CO2, then that's typical organic chemistry, even if CO2 is an inorganic molecule. If you're studying the properties of metal ions bound to organic complexes (metallorganic chemistry), that's still typically under the umbrella of inorganic chemistry.

Organic chemistry tends to focus on synthesizing and studying the properties of new organic substances, and finding new methods of synthesis. Inorganic chemistry is often focused on studying details of relatively well-known substances. You could say that from biochemistry to organic chemistry to inorganic chemistry, you deal with increasingly simple molecules, but studied in increasingly great detail.

Very helpful and interesting explanations. Thank you very much for your time.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K