Neo vs. tert

Moderators: Chem_Mod, Chem_Admin

Casey Collet 1I
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:02 pm

Neo vs. tert

Postby Casey Collet 1I » Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:45 pm

For problem number 1.17, would it be wrong to use the common name "neo" instead of using "tert"? Would one be preferred over the other or does the common name neo not even work for this example?

Chem_Mod
Posts: 18891
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:53 pm
Has upvoted: 716 times

Re: Neo vs. tert

Postby Chem_Mod » Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:59 pm

Casey Collet 1I wrote:For problem number 1.17, would it be wrong to use the common name "neo" instead of using "tert"? Would one be preferred over the other or does the common name neo not even work for this example?


Neo only applies to alkyl substituents with 5 or more carbons. The neo prefix signifies a quaternary carbon which cannot exist in a butyl substituent. The Tert prefix signifies that the butyl group has a tertiary carbon.

martha-1I
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:02 pm

Re: Neo vs. tert

Postby martha-1I » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:06 pm

Since Neo only applies to alkyl substituents, would it be incorrect to name this substituent neopentane since the substituent has 5 carbons in it?

Chem_Mod
Posts: 18891
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:53 pm
Has upvoted: 716 times

Re: Neo vs. tert

Postby Chem_Mod » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:08 pm

The substituent is a tert-butyl group. It only has 4 carbons.

martha-1I
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:02 pm

Re: Neo vs. tert

Postby martha-1I » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:11 pm

Oh yes! I was taking into account the carbon that was connecting it to the ring, which is not the right way to count the carbons on the substituent . Thank you for the clarification.

Chem_Mod
Posts: 18891
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:53 pm
Has upvoted: 716 times

Re: Neo vs. tert

Postby Chem_Mod » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:14 pm

martha-1I wrote:Oh yes! I was taking into account the carbon that was connecting it to the ring, which is not the right way to count the carbons on the substituent . Thank you for the clarification.


Correct! Be careful not to include carbons from you parent chain in your substituents when naming compounds.

sandyh9711
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:00 am

Re: Neo vs. tert

Postby sandyh9711 » Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:59 pm

If neo- is only for substituents with 5 carbons or more, are there any similar rules for iso-?

Ex. 1.16: the answer is 2-isopropyl-1,1-dimethylcyclopentane. Can the iso- become sec-?


Return to “*Cycloalkanes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest