IUPAC Names of Organic compounds

In summary, the conversation discusses the naming of a compound using IUPAC rules. One expert provides a summary of the rules, stating that the end with the more substituted carbon should be selected first and that the sum of substituents is not necessary for aliphatic compounds. The other expert questions the validity of the 'lowest sum rule' and asks for another expert's input. The first expert admits to not spending much time on IUPAC rules and suggests using a chemical database for accurate naming. The conversation is then closed for moderation.
  • #1
32
1

Homework Statement


Name the following compound according to the IUPAC rules:
001A2.jpg

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution


001a3RJESENJE ZA A.jpg

Comment on my attempt, please.
 

Attachments

  • 001A2.jpg
    001A2.jpg
    5.6 KB · Views: 990
  • 001a3RJESENJE ZA A.jpg
    001a3RJESENJE ZA A.jpg
    31.3 KB · Views: 1,209
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
CroSinus said:

Homework Statement


Name the following compound according to the IUPAC rules:View attachment 228511

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution


View attachment 228512
Comment on my attempt, please.
You select the end from which the more substituted carbon comes first. So which end is it?
Also, you don't need to do the sum for aliphatic compounds, that's only for cyclic compounds.
 
  • #3
Strange rules. Would not be better if I took into consideration all substituents? In other words shouldn't I pay attention to the sum of all substituents?
Well, strange rules!

Thank you for helping me.
Cro
 
  • #4
Actually, your doubt prompted me to do a bit of a search on it, and I'm astounded too.
https://chem.libretexts.org/LibreTexts/Athabasca_University/Chemistry_350:_Organic_Chemistry_I/Chapter_4:_Organic_Compounds:_Cycloalkanes_and_their_Stereochemistry/4.1_Naming_Cycloalkanes
http://www.chem.ucalgary.ca/courses/351/WebContent/orgnom/main/dontsum.html
Here, we have 2 articles, both from trusted sites, Chemistry LibreTexts and University of Calgary.
The first says that 'summing locants' is valid, while the other says that there is no such thing anywhere in the IUPAC nomenclature (even if we've been taught so elsewhere!) and also provides a valid justification for it.
Logically speaking, it makes sense that the higher priority substituent should get the lower number, and that should be it; which questions the validity of the 'lowest sum rule' altogether! The UCalgary standpoint appeals to me more.


This needs attention from another expert. Discuss this anomaly with your professor
 
  • #6
I don't spend much time on IUPAC (I've mentioned before on this forum that I think a lot of the conventions are illogical and unhelpful). That said, if I have to name a compound, I usually cheat by going to some chemical database that names the compounds automatically (PubChem, SciFinder, and Sigma are all pretty good). In this case, I used the PubChem structure search, which returned this little nugget:
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/23333527
 
  • Like
Likes DrClaude
  • #7
Thread closed for moderation.
 

Suggested for: IUPAC Names of Organic compounds

Replies
7
Views
688
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
933
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
921
Replies
1
Views
987
Back
Top