May 10, 2024, 02:20:43 AM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: naming  (Read 4955 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline anilin

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-1
naming
« on: May 03, 2009, 03:58:51 PM »
what is the IUPAC name of the attached compound?
thanks

Offline StarvinMarvin

  • Chemist
  • Regular Member
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • Mole Snacks: +5/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: naming
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2009, 04:10:57 PM »
(2S)-4-(N,N-dimethylamino)-3-methyl-1,2-diphenylbutan-2-ol

I guess you would not need to add "N,N" but I put it just in case. Did you notice that there's one asymmetric carbon atom more in the structure?

Offline anilin

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-1
Re: naming
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2009, 04:01:35 PM »
(2S)-4-(N,N-dimethylamino)-3-methyl-1,2-diphenylbutan-2-ol

I guess you would not need to add "N,N" but I put it just in case. Did you notice that there's one asymmetric carbon atom more in the structure?
so why didn't you state the second chiral carbon in your naming?

Offline sjb

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3652
  • Mole Snacks: +222/-42
  • Gender: Male
Re: naming
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2009, 04:30:52 PM »
(2S)-4-(N,N-dimethylamino)-3-methyl-1,2-diphenylbutan-2-ol

I guess you would not need to add "N,N" but I put it just in case. Did you notice that there's one asymmetric carbon atom more in the structure?

I'd think you only would be forced to use the N,N convention if there were a second amine or similar in the molecule, but it doesn't harm things.

so why didn't you state the second chiral carbon in your naming?

Probably because you haven't unambiguously shown the stereochemistry at that second carbon? What is the configuration at C3?

Offline anilin

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
  • Mole Snacks: +0/-1
Re: naming
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2009, 01:22:33 PM »
(2S)-4-(N,N-dimethylamino)-3-methyl-1,2-diphenylbutan-2-ol

I guess you would not need to add "N,N" but I put it just in case. Did you notice that there's one asymmetric carbon atom more in the structure?

I'd think you only would be forced to use the N,N convention if there were a second amine or similar in the molecule, but it doesn't harm things.

so why didn't you state the second chiral carbon in your naming?

Probably because you haven't unambiguously shown the stereochemistry at that second carbon? What is the configuration at C3?
thanks,  I don’t think my drawing is ambiguous for the purpose of determining stereochemistry at C3. I think it is S.

Offline sjb

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3652
  • Mole Snacks: +222/-42
  • Gender: Male
Re: naming
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2009, 02:06:21 PM »
so why didn't you state the second chiral carbon in your naming?

Probably because you haven't unambiguously shown the stereochemistry at that second carbon? What is the configuration at C3?
thanks,  I don’t think my drawing is ambiguous for the purpose of determining stereochemistry at C3. I think it is S.

OK, so just put a 3S next to the 2S in the brackets, separated by a comma. All I see at that centre, for what it's worth are two bonds in the plane of the page (to the methyl, and the methylene(dimethyl)amino groups and a bond to the phenyl groups that is only described as coming away from the carbon next to the centre I'm focussing on. Nothing about any position of the hydrogen at that centre, for instance
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 02:17:55 PM by sjb »

Sponsored Links