Page 1 of 1

-ido vs -o

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:11 pm
by Nick Lewis 4F
Why in some of the examples in the book (pg. 723) are anion ligands like CN- named cyanido, but then in other complexes named cyano?

IF it is overall positively charged is it cyano and if the complex is overall negatively charged is it cyanido?
Or is it just IUPAC confusion, and I should only use the ones on the sheet.
Thanks for any help

Re: -ido vs -o

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:13 pm
by Johnathan Smith 1D
It's just an another way of naming it. Means the same thing, but I'm pretty sure we can use either one as long as we are consistent.

Re: -ido vs -o

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:24 pm
by Venus_Hagan 2L
The two different names are because there are two different sets of naming rules. The book uses one and Lavelle used another in class. I think either is fine.

Re: -ido vs -o

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:37 pm
by Lauren Lewis3L
Lavelle said that you can use either one, but it is typically easier to use the one that ends in -o rather than the -ido. Take Chlorine for example, it would be chloro or either chlorido.

Re: -ido vs -o

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:00 pm
by Michelle Chan 1J
-ido is the most updated IUPAC naming, but either works.

Re: -ido vs -o

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:02 pm
by Kimberly Koo 2I
-ido and -o are a part of different naming guidelines, but Lavelle said it was fine to use either