-ido vs -o

Moderators: Chem_Mod, Chem_Admin

Nick Lewis 4F
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:18 am

-ido vs -o

Postby Nick Lewis 4F » Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:11 pm

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

Johnathan Smith 1D
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:16 am

Re: -ido vs -o

Postby Johnathan Smith 1D » Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:13 pm

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.

Venus_Hagan 2L
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2019 12:16 am

Re: -ido vs -o

Postby Venus_Hagan 2L » Sat Dec 07, 2019 10:24 pm

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.

Lauren Lewis3L
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:16 am

Re: -ido vs -o

Postby Lauren Lewis3L » Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:37 pm

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.

Michelle Chan 1J
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:16 am

Re: -ido vs -o

Postby Michelle Chan 1J » Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:00 pm

-ido is the most updated IUPAC naming, but either works.

Kimberly Koo 2I
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:17 am

Re: -ido vs -o

Postby Kimberly Koo 2I » Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:02 pm

-ido and -o are a part of different naming guidelines, but Lavelle said it was fine to use either


Return to “Shape, Structure, Coordination Number, Ligands”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mohamed Mido, Yichen Fan 2E and 2 guests