Isn't the Correct Name 4-(1-Chloroethyl)-4-Methylheptane?

  • Thread starter Qube
  • Start date
In summary, there is some uncertainty in naming this compound due to conflicting rules in the IUPAC recommendations. While the longest chain is typically preferred, the presence of a halogen as a substituent can make it a "substitutive nomenclature" and therefore take precedence over chain length. However, the textbooks and Wikipedia simplify this process by only considering the longest chain. Ultimately, the name of the compound is (2S)-chloro-3-methyl-3-propylhexane or 4-(1-chloroethyl)-4-methylheptane.
  • #1
Qube
Gold Member
468
1
My teacher insists the name of this compound is (2S)-chloro-3-methyl-3-propylhexane

Shouldn't it be 4-(1-chloroethyl)-4-methylheptane? (Ignore R,S configuration for now).

Chemoffice also tells me 4-(1-chloroethyl)-4-methylheptane.

Do52y.png


I think it's the latter because I've consulted three textbooks; all say pick out the longest chain of carbon atoms.

I've also consulted Wikipedia; it says pick the parent chain with the following rules in mind (in descending order of importance):

1) Pick the most substituted chain - the chain with the most substituents of the parent suffix ("ane") - so that would mean either the hexane or the heptane chain, right? The hexane chain has a methyl and an propyl substituent, and a chloro substituent (it's a halogen, however, so it doesn't count). The heptane chain has a complex alkyl substituent and a methyl substituent too.

2) Pick the longest chain. So the heptane chain should win here.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is a tough one. I've been going over the IUPAC rules, and I would lean towards your teacher being right.

From the 1979 rules, we have
IUPAC said:
(2) The formation of a name for a chemical compound usually involves the following steps, to be taken so far as they are applicable in the order given:

(a) From the nature of the compound determine the type of nomenclature to be used (substitutive, radicofunctional, additive, subtractive, conjunctive or replacement); or treat as an assembly of identical units.

(b) Determine the kind of characteristic group for use as the principal group, if any. Only one kind of characteristic group should be cited as suffix or functional class name. All substituents not so cited must be named as prefixes.
and also
IUPAC said:
Although radicofunctional nomenclature is described in this Subsection, it is to be understood that substitutive nomenclature is, in general, to be preferred.

In the 1993 rules, we find
IUPAC said:
(a) from the nature of the compound, determine the type(s) of nomenclature operations (see Section R-1.2) to be used. Although the so-called "substitutive nomenclature" is emphasized in these recommendations, other kinds of names, for example, functional class names, are often given, usually as alternatives;

From this, I would conclude that the chain containing the chlorine is to take precedence (as this makes it a "substitutive nomenclature"), even if the chain length is shorter.

The one thing that makes me uncertain is the fact that a halogen can only be named as a prefix. If the functional group was an alcohol (OH), then it would clealy take precedence: 3-methyl-3-propylhexan-2-ol. My guess is that the same approach should apply here.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #3
Thank you for the thorough response. It seems that our textbooks greatly simplify naming considerations to picking out the longest chain. My teacher also changed the answer to 4-(1-chloroethyl)-4-methylheptane. Oh well.
 

FAQ: Isn't the Correct Name 4-(1-Chloroethyl)-4-Methylheptane?

1. What is the controversy surrounding the naming of Haloalkanes?

The controversy surrounding the naming of Haloalkanes stems from the disagreement over whether the prefix "halo-" should be used instead of "fluoro-", "chloro-", "bromo-", and "iodo-" for compounds containing fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine, respectively.

2. Who are the main parties involved in this dispute?

The main parties involved in this dispute are the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the American Chemical Society (ACS).

3. What is IUPAC's argument for using the prefix "halo-"?

IUPAC argues that the prefix "halo-" is more inclusive and encompasses all halogen atoms, including the less common ones like astatine and tennessine. They also argue that using the specific halogen prefixes could lead to confusion and inconsistency in nomenclature.

4. What is ACS's argument for using the specific halogen prefixes?

ACS argues that using the specific halogen prefixes is more accurate and precise in describing the compound's composition. They also argue that it aligns with the naming conventions for other functional groups, such as alcohols and amines.

5. How is this dispute being resolved?

The dispute is currently being resolved through discussions and debates between IUPAC and ACS, as well as other organizations and experts in the field. A decision has not yet been made, but it is likely that a compromise will be reached to satisfy both parties.

Back
Top