1
$\begingroup$

Can we write "1-Chloro-ethane" when a single chloro group is present in the ethane? I think only one position is possible for the chloro group in ethane.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I do not remember if is totally wrong but surely locator is redundant here. Saving character / space and aiming to simplicity should be a kind of rule. $\endgroup$ – Alchimista Dec 19 '17 at 12:03
9
$\begingroup$

In general nomenclature, the practice of omitting locants when there is no ambiguity is widespread. For preferred IUPAC names, however, the current recommendations given in Nomenclature of Organic Chemistry – IUPAC Recommendations and Preferred Names 2013 (Blue Book) are prescriptive about when locants are omitted. In particular:

P-14.3.4.2 The locant ‘1’ is omitted:

(…)

(b) in monosubstituted homogeneous chains consisting of only two identical atoms;

(…)

Therefore, the preferred IUPAC name is indeed chloroethane and not the (correct, but not preferred) complete systematic name ‘1-chloroethane’.

(Nevertheless, note the correct capitalization and hyphenation of the names.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Not just locants are thereby omitted. When was the last time you saw "calcium (II) chloride"? $\endgroup$ – Oscar Lanzi Dec 20 '17 at 11:01
5
$\begingroup$

The position can be omitted because there indeed is only one possible position for the chloro group to be. Therefore the name Chloroethane is unambiguous.

It is however not wrong to specify the position because the chloro group is in fact in position 1. Therefore it's redundant but correct.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.