Syn the Sizer
National Hazard
Posts: 591
Registered: 12-11-2019
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
|
|
IUPAC or common name
Hey everyone, so I have a question. But first some background. In class our instructors always had us use the IUPAC name for most reagents, of course
some common names are prefered by IUPAC like toluene instead of methyl benzene.
However even the short chain acids except formic and acetic, they prefered us to use the IUPAC name like propanoic acid, butanoic acid and pentanoic
acid. Us that becoming more common in industry? Most places including here I see the common name used for everything under haxanoic acid.
This may be more suited in the O-Chem section since I am only talking about IUPAC Organic naming conventions. But it has nothing specifically to do
with reactions so maybe even more fitting in tue Beginnings section. Mods if you feel it should be move, I am apologize.
|
|
|
dawt
Hazard to Self
Posts: 74
Registered: 9-5-2016
Location: EU
Member Is Offline
Mood: fluorescent
|
|
Well, as food chemists most of my colleagues refer to even the longer chain carboxylic acids by their common names rather than IUPAC. With vitamins it
appears to depend on the subject - when we're discussing chemistry we'll say tocopherol but when discussing nutrition we'll say vitamin E.
Honestly, I don't think it's something to worry about. They're synonyms and the people you'll be discussing this stuff with usually understand both.
|
|
|
Syn the Sizer
National Hazard
Posts: 591
Registered: 12-11-2019
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
|
|
Sounds good, I just wasn't sure if there was a convention in the field or not. I prefer the IUPAC names myself and that's what I instantly use.
Thanks
|
|
|
karlos³
International Hazard
Posts: 1520
Registered: 10-1-2011
Location: yes!
Member Is Offline
Mood: oxazolidinic 8)
|
|
IUPAC is only practical up to a certain complexicity, above the common name or abbreviations in place of a common name if none exist, like for some
exotic things.
If it is important, the full name should of course be stated at least once when writing a document about it.
But on the other hand, it is beneficial for the ease of writing if a good abbreviation is common, and if not, like with novel compounds, one should
invent one, but thoughtful.
Among people who are well known with the overall topic on such things, an abbreviation will quickly become the common name.
For example, you can't always write 6-methyl-2-(2´-naphthyl)morpholine throughout a paper, so we invented the name 6-MNMo based on closely related
compound for it.
|
|
|
Syn the Sizer
National Hazard
Posts: 591
Registered: 12-11-2019
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
|
|
I understand, like Chloroquine instead of (RS)-N'-(7-chloroquinolin-4-yl)-N,N-diethyl-pentane-1,4-diamine
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
There are even common names in IUPAC, like aconitane.
Edit: And chloroquinolin of course...
[Edited on 6-8-2020 by Tsjerk]
|
|
|
Syn the Sizer
National Hazard
Posts: 591
Registered: 12-11-2019
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yes, there are prefered IUPAC names like benzaldehyde and systematic IUPAC names like benzenecarbaldehyde.
|
|
|
Fyndium
International Hazard
Posts: 1192
Registered: 12-7-2020
Location: Not in USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
I usually prefer the simplest common name form that distinguishes it. One of the more annoying ways is to use formula names which can be very
inconvenient, especially anything that's longer than few groups. The endless C:s and H:s just make life more difficult.
|
|
|
B(a)P
International Hazard
Posts: 1114
Registered: 29-9-2019
Member Is Offline
Mood: Festive
|
|
For work any documentation we prepare has the IUPAC name first then we define it with an acronym or common name to be used in the document from then
on.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
