ATAR Notes: Forum

VCE Stuff => VCE Science => VCE Mathematics/Science/Technology => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE Chemistry => Topic started by: kenhung123 on April 30, 2010, 09:03:47 pm

Title: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kenhung123 on April 30, 2010, 09:03:47 pm
2 chloro, 2 methyl, 3 hexen-4-ol

OR

2 chloro, 2 methyl, 4,3 hexenol

OR

2 chloro, 2 methyl, 4 hex-3-enol

OR

2 chloro, 2 methyl, hex-3-en-4-ol

Is it wrong if I started counting the other side? 5 chloro, 5 methyl ...

Title: Re: Name this, conventions and priorities.
Post by: stonecold on April 30, 2010, 09:06:48 pm
5-chloro-5-methylhex-3-en-3-ol

i think :P
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: the.watchman on April 30, 2010, 09:13:39 pm
Safest option is definitely the third one you wrote, no ambiguity
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: stonecold on April 30, 2010, 09:17:56 pm
umm, aren't they all wrong?

the hydroxy and methyl/chloro are separated by a carbon, so it CAN'T be 2,3.

Anyway, rules as far as I know for priority are:

1. Functional groups (carboxyl>ester>hydroxyl>amine)
2. Bonds (double & tripple)
3. Alkyl halides (chloro/bromo/idio etc.)
4. Alkyl groups (methyl/ethyl etc.)

-Number carbons according to shortest distance to highest priority group/bond.
-Name molecule in alphabetical order, disregarding di/tri/tetra.
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: physics on April 30, 2010, 09:18:30 pm
from left to right cause functional groups r more important then bonds and halide groups :)
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kenhung123 on April 30, 2010, 09:20:47 pm
If functional groups are more important doesn't it mean you count from right?
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: physics on April 30, 2010, 09:24:14 pm
OH is a functional group
Cl is an alkyl halide
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: the.watchman on April 30, 2010, 09:26:13 pm
It's not exactly left to right, it's whatever combination of numbers is the least (eg. the least adding up)
And sorry, I was wrong, I was only thinking about the positions of the numbers (before the hex etc.)

I think it should be 2-chloro-2-methyl-hex-3-en-4-ol
But I'm not entirely sure now...
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: physics on April 30, 2010, 09:31:07 pm
5-chloro-5-methyl- hex-3-en-3-ol


now i'm unsure whether to name the stuff in front in alphabetical order if they belong to differnet catergories or to name them according to importance? can someone help me out :P
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kenhung123 on April 30, 2010, 09:31:48 pm
umm, aren't they all wrong?

the hydroxy and methyl/chloro are separated by a carbon, so it CAN'T be 2,3.

Anyway, rules as far as I know for priority are:

1. Functional groups (carboxyl>ester>hydroxyl>amine)
2. Bonds (double & tripple)
3. Alkyl halides (chloro/bromo/idio etc.)
4. Alkyl groups (methyl/ethyl etc.)

-Number carbons according to shortest distance to highest priority group/bond.
-Name molecule in alphabetical order, disregarding di/tri/tetra.
Yea you are right. My alcohol naming was wrong. Fixed. Thanks alot that priority list helps a lot
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kenhung123 on April 30, 2010, 09:32:41 pm
OH is a functional group
Cl is an alkyl halide
Im pretty sure Cl is a functional group part of haloalkanes
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: stonecold on April 30, 2010, 09:33:56 pm
It's definitely alphabetical order.  This is from Wiki:

When compounds contain more than one functional group, the order of precedence determines which groups are named with prefix or suffix forms. The highest precedence group takes the suffix, with all others taking the prefix form. However, double and triple bonds only take suffix form (-en and -yn) and are used with other suffixes.

Prefixed substituents are ordered alphabetically (excluding any modifiers such as di-, tri-, etc.), e.g. chlorofluoromethane, not fluorochloromethane. If there are multiple functional groups of the same type, either prefixed or suffixed, the position numbers are ordered numerically (thus ethane-1,2-diol, not ethane-2,1-diol.) The N position indicator for amines and amides comes before "1", e.g. CH3CH(CH3)CH2NH(CH3) is N,2-dimethylpropanamine.

Edit: Maybe anna is right.  I know the NEAP book puts alkyl groups ahead of alkyl halides.

e.g. it said methylcholoropentane, which is not in alphabetical order.  it was something like that.  but that is weird, as alkyl halides>alkyl groups.

this stuff is confusing!
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kenhung123 on April 30, 2010, 09:40:27 pm
hold on carboxyl can't have numbers
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: physics on April 30, 2010, 09:41:03 pm
um i'm saying as in if u have
amine and floro or something and since amine is more important than floro u put it first when naming it?
what happens if it was  ether and chloro
since in alhapbetical order it should be chloro ether blahahaha
but if we talk about its importance functional groups>halidealkyl groups do we name in ether chloro balahah regradless of the alpahbet? this is what i'm confused about d:
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: happyhappyland on April 30, 2010, 09:51:19 pm
carboxy is most important, so the suffix will always be like -oic. if there is a hydoxy group u dont call it alcohol its called .. hydroxy and if its amine, you call it amino as the prefix. all prefix are in alphabetical order, so u can have 1-amino-2-chloro-3,4-dimethybutanoic acid
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: physics on April 30, 2010, 09:53:03 pm
carboxy is most important, so the suffix will always be like -oic. if there is a hydoxy group u dont call it alcohol its called .. hydroxy and if its amine, you call it amino as the prefix. all prefix are in alphabetical order, so u can have 1-amino-2-chloro-3,4-dimethybutanoic acid
regardless of hirachy?
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: stonecold on April 30, 2010, 09:56:00 pm
Read this, it should help.
http://depts.uwc.edu/chemistry/helpful_files/nomenclature.pdf

And yeah, as carboxyl is the highest priority functional group, any molecule that contains it must end in the suffix 'oic acid'
A hydoxyl or amine group would be prefrixed as 'hydroxy' or 'amino'

If you have an amine as the highest prioirty functional group however, the suffix MUST be 'amine.'

You can't name it as an alkane or whatever and then put 'amino' as a prefix.  VCAA will mark it wrong!
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: physics on April 30, 2010, 10:05:11 pm
Read this, it should help.
http://depts.uwc.edu/chemistry/helpful_files/nomenclature.pdf

And yeah, as carboxyl is the highest priority functional group, any molecule that contains it must end in the suffix 'oic acid'
A hydoxyl or amine group would be prefrixed as 'hydroxy' or 'amino'

If you have an amine as the highest prioirty functional group however, the suffix MUST be 'amine.'

You can't name it as an alkane or whatever and then put 'amino' as a prefix.  VCAA will mark it wrong!
confused :( sorry
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: stonecold on April 30, 2010, 10:10:12 pm
Look at this:
http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,25206.msg257152.html#msg257152

It's got the examiners report which explains what i'm saying.

Mao also gives a nice explanation. :)
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kyzoo on April 30, 2010, 10:12:00 pm
I don't really see functional groups as being prioritized over each other.

A carboxylic acid functional group can only be attached to the end of a carbon chain, hence it's logical that when naming the molecule you start counting from the carboxylic acid group, so that you avoid having to ascribe a number to the carboxylic acid group's position.
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: stonecold on April 30, 2010, 10:20:48 pm
^they are.  if you had a hydroxy and an amino group in the same molecule, you would name it with the suffix 'ol' and not 'amine.'

And the hydroxy group could be anywhere on the molecule...
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: macca69831 on April 30, 2010, 10:21:29 pm
Stonecold and annahinh are right
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kenhung123 on April 30, 2010, 10:46:33 pm
The IUPAC basic principles show alkyl group>secondary functional>double bond and they do not mention alkyl halides at all...
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: Mao on April 30, 2010, 11:07:12 pm
Thank you stonecold for linking. Here's the post.

For the sake of VCE, you'll always get fairly simple molecules to make, and it'll be pretty clear which ones are primary and which ones are secondary. So the rule simplifies to:

- Identify the functional group that will be assigned by the suffix
- Number the parent chain in a way to minimize the number of the above functional group
- All other functional groups will be assigned by prefixes, group in alphabetical order

Hence, carboxyl groups (COOH) will always be 1, and the hydroxyl group will always be minimized (for the sake of VCE)

In this case, -OH (hydroxy) takes precedence, it is the primary functional group. Secondary functional groups are chloro, methyl and alkene.

The name here will be 5-chloro-5-methylhex-3-en-3-ol. [Note the use of en, and the numbers are infixes. Between numbers and letters there should be a hyphen, and there are no spaces in a name (except for esters)]
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kenhung123 on April 30, 2010, 11:15:06 pm
What exactly is the priority of secondary functional groups?
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: Mao on April 30, 2010, 11:39:04 pm
What exactly is the priority of secondary functional groups?

It doesn't matter, numbering of the chain happens when you decide on the primary functional group, i.e. OH is numbered 3, thus alkene is also numbered 3.

But if you must know, after where this table ends, the order of precedence goes:

alkene > alkyne > halides > alkyl

Source:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:But-1-en-3-yne.svg - alkene precedence over alkyne
http://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB4429957.htm - halide precedence over alkane
http://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_JP_CB51097071.htm - alkene precedence over halide
http://www.chemicalbook.com/ProductChemicalPropertiesCB7422328_EN.htm - alkyne precedence over halide
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kenhung123 on April 30, 2010, 11:41:41 pm
Oh ok, thanks a lot Mao and Alkyl goes before alkane and after halides?
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: Mao on April 30, 2010, 11:44:49 pm
The 'alkane' group I written there means alkyl groups, I should have been more clear. Alkanes chains (the longest parent chain) has no precedence since it does not require numbering.
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: happyhappyland on May 01, 2010, 02:21:07 pm
Doubt vcaa would get that hardcore about it.
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: stonecold on May 04, 2010, 07:33:57 pm
Okay, so I just want to be clear about naming amines.  

WARNING!  Heinemann book teaches it wrong.  You can not name something aminoethane.  It has to have amine in the suffix in it, so it is actually ethylamine/ethanamine.

What I would like to like confirmed is the following:

For propane with an amine group attached to carbon 1, the name is propylamine/propanamine
For propane with an amine group attached to carbon 2, the name is 2-propylamine/propyl-2-amine/2-propanamine/propan-2-amine

Is this correct?

Also trimethylamine is just a nitrogen with three methyl groups stuck onto each bond in place of a hydrogen yeah?
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: physics on May 04, 2010, 09:02:25 pm
Okay, so I just want to be clear about naming amines. 

WARNING!  Heinemann book teaches it wrong.  You can not name something aminoethane.  It has to have amine in the suffix in it, so it is actually ethylamine/ethanamine.

What I would like to like confirmed is the following:

For propane with an amine group attached to carbon 1, the name is propylamine/propanamine
For propane with an amine group attached to carbon 2, the name is 2-propylamine/propyl-2-amine/2-propanamine/propan-2-amine

Is this correct?

Also trimethylamine is just a nitrogen with three methyl groups stuck onto each bond in place of a hydrogen yeah?
r u sure D: about the amino thingo T^T
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: happyhappyland on May 04, 2010, 09:55:49 pm
Okay, so I just want to be clear about naming amines. 

WARNING!  Heinemann book teaches it wrong.  You can not name something aminoethane.  It has to have amine in the suffix in it, so it is actually ethylamine/ethanamine.

What I would like to like confirmed is the following:

For propane with an amine group attached to carbon 1, the name is propylamine/propanamine
For propane with an amine group attached to carbon 2, the name is 2-propylamine/propyl-2-amine/2-propanamine/propan-2-amine

Is this correct?

Also trimethylamine is just a nitrogen with three methyl groups stuck onto each bond in place of a hydrogen yeah?
r u sure D: about the amino thingo T^T

you cant name it amino unless theres a carboxy or alcohol thingy
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: stonecold on May 04, 2010, 10:03:35 pm
Yeah, certain Anna.

Take a look at 8bi.
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vcaa/vce/studies/chemistry/assessreports/2009/chemistry_assessrep_june09.pdf
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kenhung123 on May 04, 2010, 10:17:58 pm
Yea the textbooks are pretty bad in that it does not clarify the priorities and that the highest priority is assigned the suffix. They seem allow prefixes and suffixes to be used interchangeably.
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: Mao on May 05, 2010, 01:18:03 am
The difference here is between 'naming' and 'systematic naming'. 2-Aminopropane or even hydroxyethane are perfectly valid names, but are not systematic names (2-propanamine and ethanol).
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: stonecold on May 05, 2010, 07:05:31 pm
Thanks for clearing that up Mao.

What is the systematic name for the following molecule?

Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kenhung123 on May 05, 2010, 07:15:25 pm
3-Chloro-6-methylheptane?
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: stonecold on May 05, 2010, 07:17:51 pm
Nah, that was the mistake I first made, but then I picked up on it. 

I said it was 3-chloro-6-methylheptane.  Which VCAA says is wrong. :(
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: cameron_15 on May 05, 2010, 07:24:26 pm
Thats what i thought it would be to. What do VCAA say?

Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: stonecold on May 05, 2010, 07:27:38 pm
well this is from Checkpoints, so unless they stuffed it up, VCAA says:

5-chloro-2-methylheptane

I was under the impression that halogens were of a higher priority than alkyl groups...

Can anyone clarify.  What if the chloro was attached to the second carbon from the left, and the methyl group attached to second carbon from the right. Then which end are you supposed to number from...
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kenhung123 on May 05, 2010, 07:30:12 pm
Nah, that was the mistake I first made, but then I picked up on it. 

I said it was 3-chloro-6-methylheptane.  Which VCAA says is wrong. :(
Lol beaten. Anyway, I think halides>alkyl as it was confirmed by Mao.
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: Stroodle on May 05, 2010, 07:40:12 pm
The exam report says the answer is:

Either of:
•   5–chloro–2–methylheptane
•   3–chloro–6–methylheptane.
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: stonecold on May 05, 2010, 07:43:20 pm
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/chemistry/assessreports/2008/chemistry_assessrep_june08.pdf

We are all good people.  Look at Question 6aii.

Both answers were accepted.  Stupid Checkpoints only put one!
I was devastated when I thought I got that question wrong haha.

Also they didn't say one was right or wrong.  It was a 50-50 split between students haha.  So hopefully they wont give us something so ambiguous in this years paper, or at least they will accept all the reasonable answers.
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kenhung123 on May 05, 2010, 08:24:50 pm
Well thats strange so treating halide=alkyl precedence is accepted..
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kyzoo on May 05, 2010, 10:40:14 pm
well this is from Checkpoints, so unless they stuffed it up, VCAA says:

5-chloro-2-methylheptane

I was under the impression that halogens were of a higher priority than alkyl groups...

Can anyone clarify.  What if the chloro was attached to the second carbon from the left, and the methyl group attached to second carbon from the right. Then which end are you supposed to number from...

You number the positions of the functional groups and alkyl groups such that the total of the numbers in the systematic name is minimum.

Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kenhung123 on May 05, 2010, 11:10:59 pm
Err so whats the point of the priorities then?
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: stonecold on May 05, 2010, 11:22:37 pm
I think kyzoo is right, but VCAA doesn't really seem to mind on this one which is good.

Halogens are still greater priority than alkyl groups though.

Google:
2-chloro-4-methylpentane
4-chloro-2-methylpentane

Only the first one gives results.  (This is a different molecule im talking about now btw, just in case of confusion)
Title: Re: Organic chem, conventions and priorities.
Post by: kenhung123 on May 05, 2010, 11:33:58 pm
Umm, I think you number in such a way that the total number is least only when there is no functional groups. Which does not destroy the purpose of the priorities.