Timeline for Nomenclature and chemical formulae for bridged dinuclear chromium complexes
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 5, 2017 at 23:46 | comment | added | Linear Christmas | How would this generalise to the case where there is also a metal-metal bond present? More specifically, is the proper formula of chromium(II) acetate dihydrate given as $$\ce{[Cr(OH2)($\unicode[Times]{x3BC}$-O2CCH3)2]2}?$$ How would one name this compound? (If you're available, feel free to add this as an addendum to your already wonderful answer to receive a +100 bounty.) | |
| Feb 23, 2017 at 16:31 | history | edited | Linear Christmas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added the note back just in case, just with a different tone
|
| Feb 22, 2017 at 23:40 | history | edited | Linear Christmas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Upright 'mu' as was origionally intended (part of ongoing typography spree)
|
| Mar 13, 2016 at 16:03 | vote | accept | Linear Christmas | ||
| Mar 13, 2016 at 15:24 | comment | added | user7951 | @LinearChristmas The order of ligand citation was changed in the IUPAC Recommendations 2005. Now, it does not depend on the charge of the ligand. Also, the historical ligand names chloro and cyano are obsolete now. They were changed to chlorido and cyanido in 2005. | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 15:23 | comment | added | user7951 | @LinearChristmas Yes, the formula $\ce{[(H2O)3Cr(\mu-OH)2(\mu-SO4)Cr(OH2)3]^2+}$ violates the ordering principles outlined in Subsection IR-9.2.3.1. This is allowed according to Subsections IR-9.2.3 and IR-9.2.5.1. I made an edit to my answer to clarify this. | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 15:22 | history | edited | user7951 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 671 characters in body
|
| Mar 13, 2016 at 14:30 | comment | added | Linear Christmas | (a) Recommendation $(i)$ states that central atom(s) should be listed first. Isn't then $\ce{[(H2O)3Cr(\mu-OH)2(\mu-SO4)Cr(OH2)3]^2+}$ in violation of this rule? Or does $(iii)$ supersede $(i)$? I also have another question. (b) IR-9.2.3.1 states that "placement of the ligand does not depend on charge". This seems to contradict what I have learned; specifically that anionic ligands are to be placed before neutral ligands. (c) Can one also use chloro- instead of chlorido- and cyano instead of cyanido (which is also what I have been taught). Thanks for a brilliant answer! | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 13:28 | history | answered | user7951 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |