Why Is Tetrachlorocuprate(II) Ion Incorrect?

  • Thread starter Thread starter haoku
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Complex Ion
AI Thread Summary
The correct name for the complex ion CuCl4^2- is tetrachlorocopper(II) ion, not tetrachlorocuprate(II) ion. The term "cuprate" is not recognized by IUPAC nomenclature, which only allows for copper(I) or copper(II) designations. Using "cuprate" implies the presence of oxygen, which is misleading since the suffix "-ate" traditionally denotes anions. The discussion emphasizes adherence to IUPAC rules for accurate chemical naming. For clarity and correctness, consulting a General or Inorganic Chemistry textbook is recommended.
haoku
Messages
24
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Name of complex ion CuCl4^2-


The Attempt at a Solution



I wrote tetrachlorocuprate(II) ion and my teacher says it is incorrect. I should write tetrachlorocopper(II) ion
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cuprate i think would mean there is oxygen combined with the copper. like for chlorate(1) which is ClO-. the -ate suffix generally means an oxide.
 
It's possible that they are saying that by writing copper(II) you are implying cuprate, and therefore don't need to say it. For example, nowadays we don't say sulphite and sulphate, we say sulphate(II) and sulphate(III)... I think.
 
best guess right now is : tetrachlorocuprate(II) but better is to check in a General Chemistry textbook or an Inorganic Chemistry textbook.
 
haoku said:

Homework Statement



Name of complex ion CuCl4^2-


The Attempt at a Solution



I wrote tetrachlorocuprate(II) ion and my teacher says it is incorrect. I should write tetrachlorocopper(II) ion

You must be naming according to IUPAC nomenclature rules. IUPAC doesn't recognize 'cuprate'; it is either copper(I) or copper(II). 'Cuprate' is often used in the literature but it isn't strictly correct according to IUPAC. It is particularly offensive (to chemical geeks like me) that the -ate suffix is used to apply to a positively charged metal when everyone knows that even under the old nomenclature system that -ate was the nomenclature of heteropoly anions!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUPAC_nomenclature_of_inorganic_chemistryhttp://www2.potsdam.edu/walkerma/inorg_naming.pdf" ... (page 2, right hand column)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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