IUPAC nomenclature for many multiple bonds

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding IUPAC nomenclature rules for numbering carbon atoms in molecules with multiple bonds, specifically double and triple bonds. One teacher emphasizes that double bonds take precedence and should receive the lowest possible number, while another teacher suggests that the lowest number should be assigned to whichever multiple bond is closest to the end of the carbon chain. The concept of the "lowest sum of locants" rule is mentioned as a guiding principle when multiple bonds are present. Participants recommend consulting the official IUPAC website for definitive rules, noting that the current nomenclature guidelines may only be available in print due to copyright issues. The importance of using authoritative sources over informal advice is highlighted as crucial for understanding IUPAC nomenclature accurately.
donaldparida
Messages
146
Reaction score
10
My previous Chemistry teacher while teaching IUPAC nomenclature said that the double bond is always given greater priority over the triple bond and the numbering of the carbon atom chain is done in such a way that the double bond gets the lowest possible number while my present Chemistry teacher says that the numbering of the carbon atoms is done in such a way that the multiple bond gets the lowest number whether it is the double bond or the triple bond (whichever multiple bond is nearest to the end when both the ends are considered, numbering is done from that end).

On surfing through the various sites on the Internet, i came across the lowest sum of locants rule.

I am confused and cannot understand how to number the carbon atoms for IUPAC nomenclature purposes when many multiple bonds are present in the molecule. What is the actual rule?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Very general remark: why don't you try to find IUPAC rules on the IUPAC site to check the source, instead of asking random people on the random site?

If memory serves me well at some point in time IUPAC site was redirecting to the ACD Labs ChemSketch pages as the definitive source, still, that meant it WAS the definitive source.
 
Borek said:
Very general remark: why don't you try to find IUPAC rules on the IUPAC site to check the source, instead of asking random people on the random site?

If memory serves me well at some point in time IUPAC site was redirecting to the ACD Labs ChemSketch pages as the definitive source, still, that meant it WAS the definitive source.

As the disclaimer on the ACD Labs webpage mentions the current nomenclature rules (2013) is present only in print form due to copyright issues. I don't know how much has changed but I don't think it'll matter to us students.
 
No matter what the situation is (I admit I have not checked) it doesn't change fact that it is best to consult the original source instead of asking for opinions. That's all I tried to say.
 
  • Like
Likes Mastermind01
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top