Organic Chemistry: No. of chiral centres in Camphor

AI Thread Summary
Camphor has two chiral centers, with the first identified beneath the top CH3 group, which has four different substituents. The second chiral center is located at the bottom-most carbon atom, which may initially seem symmetrical but is asymmetrical upon closer examination. The carbon is bonded to different groups when considering the adjacent atoms, confirming its chirality. The confusion arises from the ring structure, which can obscure the identification of chiral centers. Understanding the connectivity and substituents is crucial for determining chirality in cyclic compounds.
DarkStalker
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Hello. I have a query regarding organic chemistry.

1. http://tinyurl.com/y9nvg2p
See question number 21.




2. Homework Equations : None



3. The first Carbon atom beneath the top-most CH3 group I can tell is a chiral centre, as it has 4 different groups attached to it (C=O, CH2, CH3, C). Apparently the answer is C, i.e 2 chiral centres. I can't locate the second one.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How about the bottom-most carbon atom?
 
danago said:
How about the bottom-most carbon atom?

That's the answer, but I couldn't put together a solid reasoning. Normally chiral compounds that we're supposed to identify have, I don't know what to call it, terminal ends? E.g, like the chiral carbon would be bonded to H, OH, CH3, CO2H. That ring confused me. Taking the entire ring as a group, that Carbon is attached to the same group on both the ends.
 
You can do a similar kind of analysis even though it is a ring. If you look at the group directly either side of the bottom carbon, they are indeed the same (-CH2), however if you move along and look at the next group, it is a CH2 on the left side and a C=O on the right side i.e. The ring is not symmetrical, so you can kind of think of it as being bonded to 4 different groups.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top