Chemistry Choosing principal chain in the nomenclature of organic compounds

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on determining the principal chain in organic compound nomenclature between two approaches: one with a longer carbon chain but fewer substituents and another with a shorter chain but more substituents. According to IUPAC guidelines, the longest carbon chain typically takes precedence, but the number of substituents can also influence the decision. The excerpts from the IUPAC Blue Book indicate that while substituents are important, the longest chain generally holds priority unless a chain has more principal characteristic groups. Ultimately, the conclusion reached is that 4-methyl-4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)heptane is the preferred name due to its longer chain.
arham_jain_hsr
Messages
25
Reaction score
9
Homework Statement
Write the preferred IUPAC name for the following acyclic compound.
Relevant Equations
N/A
structure.png


In this question, I am not sure as to which of the following two chains should be considered as the principal chain.

Approach 1 (7 carbon chain, 2 substituents):
method 1.png

4-methyl-4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)heptane

Approach 2 (6 carbon chain, 4 substituents):
method 2.png

2,2,3-trimethyl-3-propylhexane

Clearly, the carbon chain is the longest in the first approach, but approach 2 has more substituents. In such scenarios, which of the two criteria takes precedence?
I found several conflicting responses on this subject, and would certainly appreciate confirmation. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For alkanes it is always longest first.

It gets more complicated for other classes of compounds.
 
I too thought so. But, this is what I found in the IUPAC Blue Book:

"P-44.1 SENIORITY ORDER FOR PARENT STRUCTURES
When there is a choice, the senior parent structure is chosen by applying the following criteria, in order, until a decision is reached. These criteria must always be applied before those applicable to rings and ring systems (see P-44.2) and to chains (see P-44.3). Then criteria applicable to both chains and rings or ring systems given in P-44.4 are considered.

P-44.1.1 The senior parent structure has the maximum number of substituents corresponding to the principal characteristic group (suffix) or senior parent hydride in accord with the seniority of classes (P-41) and the seniority of suffixes (P-43)."

Further, it is stated in P-44.3,
"P-44.3 SENIORITY OF ACYCLIC CHAINS (THE PRINCIPAL CHAIN)
In an acyclic compound consisting of individual atoms, alike or different (an acyclic chain), the chain on which the nomenclature and numbering is based is called the ‘principal chain’. When there is a choice for the principal chain, the following criteria are applied, in the order listed, until a decision is reached.
...
P-44.3.2 The principal chain has the greater number of skeletal atoms [criterion (b) in P-44.3]"

From what I understand, the above excerpts suggest that the number of substituents holds precedence over length of the chain.
Am I missing something here?
 
Sorry, I think I had misinterpreted this point. The longest carbon chain has precedence over a carbon chain with greater substituents. But, above both of those, a chain with more number of principal characteristic group as substituents is given priority.

"P-44.1.1 The senior parent structure has the maximum number of substituents corresponding to the principal characteristic group [\B] (suffix) or senior parent hydride in accord with the seniority of classes (P-41) and the seniority of suffixes (P-43)."

Based on this, I can conclude that 4-methyl-4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)heptane is the preferred name.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top