Showing posts with label hydrocarbons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hydrocarbons. Show all posts

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Examples of Naming Cyclic Alkanes

Once again, I steal some problems from my textbook and do them here.
It's a ring made of six carbons, so it's a cyclohexane. Only one of the positions in the ring has any groups attached to it, and both groups are methyl groups, so it's 1,1-dimethylcyclohexane.
Another cyclohexane, obviously. This one has two groups at two different ring positions. The positions are across from each other in a 1,4 relationship. But which group gets numbered "1" and which one gets numbered "4"? Well, one is a methyl group and the other is a butyl group (four carbons in a straight chain). Alphabetical order determines which one comes first, so this is 1-butyl-4-methylcyclohexane.
The chain is bigger than the ring this time. So this compound is, as far as naming goes, defined as a five-carbon chain with a group attached at the first carbon, and the group that is attached is a cyclopropane ring. Therefore, we have 1-cyclopropylpentane.
The ring is a cyclopentane. Three groups this time, and all of them methyl groups, which makes naming this easy. Almost so easy that you could do it by yourself. But how do we number these groups? It doesn't matter which way we count, the smallest number we can start with is 1. This compound is 1,2,3-trimethylpentane.
This one is trickier. We definitely have a cyclohexane ring, but what are those groups attached to it. Well, let's start with the smaller one. It's an isopropyl group. See that? Probably not. Well, I told you, so now you know. Isopropyl group. The other one has four carbons. You might remember that there are four such groups possible. And if you have really been paying attention, it's clear that this is a sec-butyl group. Alphabetical order again, but the only prefix that matters for that is "iso-." That means the sec-butyl group is first. So this compound is 1-sec-butyl-2-isopropylcyclohexane.

Well, that's way that I learned to name this. And it's even the name that my solutions manual gives. But ChemSketch generated a different name that I am guessing is the true systematic name using proper IUPAC rules. The only difference is that the groups can't be written as isomeric forms of their straight-chain versions. This makes the nomenclature a bit messier (but it also scales up nicely, while the shortcut I'm using doesn't.

And that, children, is how to name cycloalkanes. I don't actually know what topic I'll cover next. You'll just have to wait to find out.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Nomenclature of Cycloalkanes

This will not cover all cycloalkanes. In fact, for now we're only dealing with compounds that have a single ring. But then I didn't really cover all acyclic alkanes either. But what you should have with this post is a basic idea of cycloalkane nomenclature.

Rings themselves are named by how many carbons they consist of. So, for example, this molecule...
...is cyclohexane. But you already know that, of course. I mean, you do, right? You'd better, seeing as I already told you that this is cyclohexane. Yes, it was back in October, but so what? I mean, you are supposed to read and remember everything I write here. You know, I'm getting the feeling that you're not being much of a team player here. Yeah, it sure seems like I'm the one doing all the work. Look, it's just cyclohexane. It's not complicated. It's a simple molecule with a simple name. Four syllables. That's not too many. Cyclohexane. Cyclohexane. Cyclohexane. And don't you forget it.

Speaking of earlier posts, in this one I showed cyclopropane. Unless you're as awful at geometry as you are at chemistry, you should be able to make the connection that if the triangle is cyclopropane and the hexagon is cyclohexane, a square is cyclobutane and a pentagon is cyclopentane. Yes, and a heptagon is cycloheptane and so on. All we're doing is using those chemical numeric prefixes I showed earlier and counting the numbers of carbon atoms making up the ring. You can count, right? You can at least do that much.

But watch out. Not everything in the molecule is necessarily part of the ring...
That is methylcyclohexane (in glorious 3-D). Seven carbons, but only six of them form a ring. The pesky seventh one is attached to the ring. And if you've already forgotten how skeletal structures work, the hydrogens attached to the carbons are not drawn in. All but one of the ring carbons has two hydrogens. One of them has only one hydrogen and is also bonded to that carbon outside the ring, which itself has three hydrogens. So it's a methyl group. Hence the name: methylcyclohexane.

Of course multiple groups could be attached to the ring. In that case, we use numbers. This compound...
...goes by the name 1-ethyl,3-methylcyclohexane. And if you think in terms of the rules you learned for acyclic alkanes, this makes sense. We have to number the positions on the ring somehow. So we're starting at first substituent alphabetically. Here, I'll even put the numbers in...
This system of numbering positions on rings will be used a lot in the future, so you should be comfortable with it. But it seems straightforward enough to me, so I'm not going to reiterate it further.

We might also end up with two groups attached at the same position on a ring. Not to worry...
That's 1,1-dimethylcyclopentane. The same general principles from naming acyclic alkanes still apply. This does run into limitations of course. I won't be covering those now. But I do think that I should to a follow-up post in which I name some examples from homework problems in the textbook. And just so that you can follow along, there is one more tiny little thing that you need to know about cycloalkanes. If a ring is attached to a hydrocarbon chain that is longer than the number of positions in the ring (like if a cyclopentane ring had an octane chain attached to it), the compound is named based on the chain (so that example I just made up would be 1-cyclopentyloctane).

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Examples of Naming Acyclic Alkanes

As promised, here are some right out of the textbook.

The first one is in condensed notation: CH3CH2CH(CH3)CH2CH3

Since I am so good, I immediately recognize that the third carbon has a one-carbon branch. Other than that, this is a straight chain. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. We are doing this the right way. We start with the last part of the name. With no heteroatoms, this is a hydrocarbon. With no multiple bonds, it's an alkane. With no rings, it's an acyclic alkane. We know the name must end in "-ane." Next, what's the longest carbon chain? Five. So the parent name is pentane. Branches? Yes, at the third carbon (counting either way). And the branch is a methyl group. Therefore, the name of this compound is...

...3-methylpentane. And you know what else? I checked the answer in the study guide and I was right! Woo hoo, Stephen got something right. Anyway...

(CH3)3CCH2CH(CH2CH3)2

This one is harder. First we have three methyl groups attached to one carbon. That carbon links to another that links to another, which is attached to two ethyl groups. Which methyl group and which ethyl group is considered part of the longest carbon chain does not matter because the groups are identical (that is, the methyl groups are identical to each other and the ethyl groups are identical to each other). So adding those three carbons to the rest of the chain, we find that the longest carbon chain is six carbons long, so this is a hexane.

Which group gets priority? In this case, we go in alphabetical order. "E" comes before "M." So this should be...

...3-ethyl-5,5-dimethylhexane. Or not. Oops. I started at the wrong end. It's actually 4-ethyl-2,2-dimethylhexane. It's that instead of the one I thought it was because 2 is lower than 5. It doesn't matter that 3 is lower than 4 because the method that gives the lowest number period is the one that gets priority, not the one that gives the lowest sum or anything like that. I hope you learned your lesson. Moving on.

CH3(CH2)3CH(CH2CH2CH3)CH(CH3)2

A propyl group? No, that's part of the longest carbon chain. They're trying to trick us. Starting from the left we have a carbon and then a string of three more, so that's four in a row. Then there's another (five) with that propyl group branching off. If we count going up the propyl group we get three more (eight). If we treat the propyl group as a branch, we get another carbon with two methyl groups, one of which would be a branch, making the total length seven. Sneaky textbook. This is actually an octane.

If we start from the end of what's being labeled as a propyl group (but is actually part of the chain) we get a branch at the fourth carbon. Starting from the left makes it at the fifth, so we start from the end of the propyl group instead. The branch consists of three carbons and two of them are attached to the other, which is where the branch connects, so it's an isopropyl group, meaning the compound is...

...4-isopropyloctane. And I'm right. I rule.

Enough of these condensed structures!
I used MS Paint because it was a small one and it's kind of hard to make them look less awful on ChemSketch. Anyway, this one seems easy to me. Five carbons long means pentane. Two methyl branches at the second carbon and two at the fourth. Therefore...

...2,2,4,4-tetramethylpentane. And I am right again. Excellent.
It's seven carbons long, but there are a couple of different ways to arrive at that. The one that give the lowest number to a branch is the one that simply starts on the far left, for a methyl group at the second carbon. There's another one at the fifth carbon and an ethyl group at the third, so this is...

...3-ethyl-2,5-dimethylheptane. And I'm right yet again. Three in a row! Let's do one more.
I moved back to MS Paint again when I perhaps should not have. But ChemSketch was being annoying (it kept trying to put rings into this). Obviously this one is larger than the other ones so far, but the principle is the same. The longest carbon chain is ten. The fastest we can get to a branch with it is on the second carbon, again counting from the far left. From there we label the other branches and put them in the proper order. About that, the branch on the fifth carbon is a sec-butyl group. When alphabetizing the branch names, this is treated as a "B" and not as an "S." The same would be true for tert-butyl but not for isobutyl. Unnecessarily confusing, I know. But in this case it does slightly affect the name, which is...

...5-sec-butyl-3-ethyl-2,7-dimethyldecane. And that's pretty much all there is to it. The study guide I used to check my answers breaks the process into three steps.
  1. Name the parent chain by finding the longest C chain.
  2. Number the chain so that the first substituent gets the lower number. Then name and number all substituents, giving like substituents a prefix (di, tri, etc.).
  3. Combine all parts, alphabetizing the substituents, ignoring all prefixes except iso.
It takes some getting used to, but this is the basis for how other compounds, even ones with multiple functional groups, are named.

Nomenclature of Acyclic Alkanes: Prefix

I hope you have the other component of naming alkanes down, because I am never reviewing it again (just kidding). Now for the prefix. While the parent name identifies the longest carbon chain, the prefix tells us where on that chain branches occur and what the branches look like. Depending on how much branching (and what kind) is going on, the prefix may be anywhere from nonexistent (no branches, which we sometimes denote by using "n" as a prefix) to ridiculously long.

Firstly, the location of a branch is denoted using Arabic numerals. A branch at the second carbon in the longest carbon chain gets a "2" and a branch at the third carbon gets a "3" and so on. Some carbons in the longest carbon chain might have two branches. When that happens, its number gets used twice.

Often, there are multiple possible places to start from. With alkanes, the correct starting carbon is the one which, when started from, yields the lowest possible number being named first. If we start counting on one end of a chain and the first number that comes up is for a branch at the fourth carbon, but counting from the other end of the chain would make our first branch be at the second carbon, then it is the end that would make the first branch be at the second carbon that is the correct starting point.

Also, numerals are separated from each other by commas and from the rest of the name by hyphens. That's not just for alkanes. That's a universal rule. Commit it to memory, slave.

Anyway, to specify how long a branch is, we use the wonderful numerical prefixes I introduced in my last post. You know, the ones that are mostly Greek, but not really. A branch that is only one carbon is a "methyl" group. Two carbons is an "ethyl" group, etc. A branch that is seven carbons long is a "heptyl" group (and since it's not part of the longest carbon chain, that means the longest carbon chain must be really long). This all works nicely for branches that are themselves straight. But what about branches that have branches of their own? That's the hard part. Kind of. In order for considerable branching to occur, the molecule itself has to be pretty big. I've never had to deal with such compounds myself. The textbook is covering substituents with up to four carbons and that's always been good enough for what I've had to do. There are not very many. Here we go...

Methyl group: R—CH3
Ethyl group: R—CH2CH3
Propyl group: R—CH2CH2CH3
Isopropyl group: R—CH(CH3)2
Butyl group: R—CH2CH2CH3
sec-Butyl group: R—CH(CH3)CH2CH3
Isobutyl group: R—CH2CH(CH3)2
tert-Butyl group: R—C(CH3)3

If you find the condensed structures confusing for those four-carbon groups, here are some links to pictures (off-site) for the butyl variations...

Butyl, sec-butyl, isobutyl, and tert-butyl.

And that's all. Now you know how to name acyclic alkanes. Oh, one more thing. If two or more of the same type of branch exists in a molecule, those branches get named together and get a Greek numerical prefix just to confuse you even more. But really, that's it. Stay tuned for next time, where I'll do a follow-up post with some examples of naming alkanes using problems from the textbook. Oh wait, this isn't a radio. You can't tune anything. Whatever.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Nomenclature of Acyclic Alkanes: Parent Name

I mentioned the IUPAC systematic nomenclature system before. I think I did, anyway. This project has been on hiatus for a while and I can't remember. But I'm back now! Really. I hope. Anyway, today we are going to learn how to name some alkanes. It's easy to do, and you need to know it to name other compounds. So learn it. I command you.

Let's start at the end. That's a good place to start, right? The last part of the name of any alkane is, get ready for this...

...it's "-ane." That should be quite easy to remember, even for you, because "alkane" itself ends in "-ane." If a compound is an alkane, its name ends in "-ane" and, conveniently enough, if a compound is not an alkane, its name will not end in "-ane." I know. Chemistry is so hard.

Next, we find the longest carbon chain. This is actually very easy, but teachers love trying to trick beginning students with odd drawings where they make part of the longest carbon chain look like a branch to people who are not paying attention. If this were a real chemistry class and I were the teacher (that would be bad), I would totally do this to you because I think it's hilarious. For now, I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are paying attention and can tell what the longest carbon chain in a molecule is.

Really? I shouldn't do that? Fine.
How long is the longest carbon chain? If you answered eight, congratulations, you did not fall for the dumbest trick in chemistry class. If you answered some other number, you were not paying attention or you cannot count or you're just a moron or something. I don't know. Shame on you anyway. You're bad (unless you got the right answer).

Once we know how long the longest chain is, we convert that into a numerical prefix, then attach it to our "-ane" suffix. Convert it into a numerical prefix? Yes, it's easy. No really. It is easy, just so long as you already know the Greek numerical prefixes—and use the Latin one for "nine" just to mess things up—and forget the first four prefixes and make up new special ones that are specific to chemistry. It was easy for me though! Here, I'll give you the first ten and we'll worry about going higher later.

1 = "meth"
2 = "eth"
3 = "prop"
4 = "but" (pronounced like the word "butte" just to confuse you even more)
5 = "pent"
6 = "hex"
7 = "hept"
8 = "oct"
9 = "non" (pronounced so that it rhymes with "tone" and not some other way)
10 = "dec"

Memorize them now. I command you. Done? Good. See, that wasn't so bad. Now, there's just one more tiny thing. Then we'll be all done and you'll know how to name acyclic alkanes. We have straight chains covered (unless they're longer than ten carbons long, but shut up). So a hydrocarbon that is a straight chain with five carbons would be "pentane" and one with nine would be "nonane" and so forth. Everything is fine, and then branches come and mess it all up. Not to worry: the IUPAC has an elaborate set of rules for us to denote where on a chain the branches lie and what the branches look like using prefixes and attaching them to the parent name (which simply describes the longest carbon chain. Well, it's elaborate enough that I'll save it for my next post, anyway. For now, just have the whole parent name part down.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Cycloalkanes

I just found an error in my textbook. Seriously. The book even bolds its own error. The offending sentence reads...
Cycloalkanes have molecular formula CnH2n and contain carbon atoms arranged in a ring.
That is only true for cycloalkanes with just one ring. Cycloalkanes can have more than one ring, and each additional ring means two fewer hydrogens. And there are a lot of those. Try to keep up, textbook. Anyway, the examples the book then uses for cycloalkanes are all ones with just one ring. In fact, the examples in this section of the book have all of the carbons in the ring, but this is not necessary or even particularly significant.

The smallest cycloalkane ever is cyclopropane, with a molecular formula of C3H8 and a skeletal structure that looks like this...
Yes, it's a triangle. This really should not surprise you if you've been paying attention, which you haven't. I could show it in 3-D, but so far I haven't figured out a way to post my wonderful 3-D images here in this blog thing without them looking like crap (because I am pasting them into MS Paint and saving them there. If you want pretty pictures, go read a pretty pictures blog or something. I hear that they have those. Such things may be more suited to your intellect.

Cyclobutane's skeletal structure looks like a square. This should be easy to visualize. Same with cyclopentane and a pentagon. I have already shown the skeletal structure for cyclohexane here and here.

Also, the book claims that the largest known cycloalkane with a single ring has 288 carbon atoms. But this is in a problem asking for molecular formula (and obviously the molecular formula is C288H576) and I cannot tell if it is giving me authentic trivia or merely posing a hypothetical for the purposes of asking such a question and reinforcing the concept.

One last thing, which the book apparently omits in this section (although it will probably come up later) is ring strain. The carbon atoms are most stable at a certain bond angles. In the case of alkanes (and lots of other things, really), the ideal bond angle is 109.5° and all four groups attached to the carbon atom are equally far away from each other, forming a tetrahedron with the carbon atom in the center and each attached group in one of the corners. But when carbon atoms form rings, the bond angles become strained. This ring strain causes the molecule to be more reactive. Cyclopropane, with 60° angles between the carbons, has the most ring strain. After that, it becomes important to note that these rings are three-dimensional objects. They can be denoted with two-dimensional skeletal structures on paper, but are under no obligation to lie flat. So cyclobutane does not actually have 90° angles between its carbons, as "puckering" reduces strain and creates larger angles. Later in the chapter, this is explored for cyclohexane in particular, which has the most stable ring among cycloalkanes.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

A Note on Complexity and Isomerism

My textbook has a table with information that I did not include in my last post, but that may improve understanding of isomerism. In case it is not obvious, the number of isomers grows with the size of a molecule. In my last post, I showed the two isomers of butane. Larger alkanes have even more, because with more atoms, there are more ways to rearrange them. Small alkanes are easy to understand in this regard. A hydrocarbon with one carbon has no isomerism. The same is true for two or three carbons. When we get to four, as already demonstrated, there are two possibilities: a straight chain and one with a branch. Five carbons means three isomers. With seven carbons, we get nine isomers, which is still manageable, but then add a single carbon and there are eighteen isomers. The table ends with icosane (C20H42), which has 366,319 constitutional isomers.

And that is just acyclic alkanes. There are so many other things to consider, that the complexity is staggering. And that is why we have a systematic method of naming molecules. Anything else would get pretty impractical.

Constitutional Isomers Redux

I suppose that my textbook introduces constitutional isomers in the alkanes chapter because alkanes are pretty straightforward and can ease one into the concept. Constitutional isomers can and do occur in other molecules. Isomerism is when two or more different compounds have the same molecular formulae. In other words, they have the same kinds of atoms and the same numbers of those atoms, but something makes them chemically distinct. Later on, we will explore stereoisomers, and it will be very exciting. But for now, we're looking at constitutional isomers, which differ in the way the atoms are connected to each other. Let's take a look at two molecules that are constitutional isomers of each other...

Name: n-butane (or just butane)
Molecular formula: C4H10
Condensed structure: CH3CH2CH2CH3
In stunning 3-D:

Yes, I just figured out that I could render butane three-dimensionally with my nifty software. Anyway...

Name: isobutane (or 2-methylpropane)
Molecular formula: C4H10
Condensed structure: CH(CH3)3
In glorious 3-D:
Both molecules have the same quantities of the same atoms. But the bonds are not identical here. A carbon bonded to two other carbons and two hydrogens is electromagnetically different from one bonded to three other carbons and one hydrogen. Also, the three-dimensional forms are quite different, and when the molecules interact with other bodies (including other molecules just like themselves) the results will be at least slightly different. Although very similar, these two compounds have different chemical and physical properties. They are more like each other than other compounds that have different atoms and other, more striking differences. Because of these facts, we use the term "constitutional isomers" to denote the relationship between these similar molecules.

But when it comes to properties, constitutional isomers are not always so similar to each other as those two. Some constitutional isomers contain different functional groups from each other and, if you remember the importance of functional groups like you should, this means they can have dramatically different chemical and physical properties...

Name: ethanol

Molecular formula: C2H6O

Condensed structure: CH3CH2OH

In brilliant 3-D:

It's an old friend: ethanol. I don't know how many times I've shown ethanol before, but you had better know that this is what it looks like. And if you managed to actually have some brain capacity, maybe you even remember that this compound is an alcohol, as it has a hydroxyl functional group. Easy, but here's a constitutional isomer of ethanol.

Name: dimethyl ether (or methoxymethane)

Molecular formula: C2H6O

Condensed structure: CH3OCH3

In spectacular 3-D:
Since the name has "ether" in it, you have deduced, unless you are a total idiot, that this is an ether (the name of the functional group is methoxy in this case). But the molecular formula is the same. The functional groups here are so unlike each other that reactions possible for one would be impossible for the other. Oh, and remember hydrogen bonding? Ethanol has it. Dimethyl ether cannot have hydrogen bonding because there is no hydrogen attached to the oxygen, so these two even have different intermolecular forces. In this way, two constitutional isomers can be quite dissimilar. What kind of atoms a molecule has and how many are very important, but the configuration of the bonds holding the atoms together in a molecule matters a lot too.

Edit: After posting this, I started going back to tag my posts. I noticed that way back in February, I wrote a post about constitutional isomers. I think this new post is better, but here is the old one. If you do not get the concept after reading this post, read the old one. If you still don't get it, tell me, I guess. It seems fairly simple to me and I think I did an adequate job of explaining it both times, but maybe I am wrong...

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Cyclic and Acyclic Alkanes

As I mentioned in my Functional Groups post, alkanes are hydrocarbon molecules with no π-bonds. They can be straight chains of carbons with attached hydrogens, or there can be branches or rings or both. All of the fourth chapter in my textbook is dedicated to alkanes. But the first part is just about getting acquainted with them. Alkanes are something of a baseline in organic chemistry. It's when functional groups are added that the chemical properties behind so much of our world come into play. Lacking functional groups, alkanes are not particularly reactive. They can react, though. And I know we'll come to that eventualy. There's a lot to learn from alkanes, though.

Firstly, let's distinguish between acyclic alkanes and cyclic alkanes. If it has a ring, it's cyclic. If it does not have a ring, it is acyclic. Simple, right? It better be. No, two rings is still cyclic. What counts as a ring? Oh, good question. A ring is pretty much what it sounds like. Three or more atoms bonded to each other with a loop that can be formed from the bonds between them. Carbon #1 is attached to Carbon #2 and Carbon #2 is attached to Carbon #3, which is itself attached to Carbon #1. Three atoms is the minimum, but larger rings are more common.

For an acyclic alkane, the number of hydrogens will always be two plus double the number of carbons. H = 2C+2. Actually, a little logic should demonstrate this point. No amount of branching chains changes the formula. But a single ring does. I shall illustrate with some examples. First, here is hexane...

Name: n-hexane
Molecular formula: C6H14
Skeletal structure:

Well, that's a nice, simple acyclic one. How about an acyclic alkane?

Name: Cyclohexane
Molecular formula: C6H12
Skeletal structure:
I Know I've shown this one at least once here, once upon a time. Hexagons should hopefully be pretty recognizable. And notice that it has two fewer hydrogens than the last one? That's because of the ring. What? You want to know how the ring makes it so that there are two fewer hydrogens in the molecule? Really? Look, just pretend we sever the bond between two carbons. Any two. Now those two carbons need a new bond to something else because, remember, carbon forms four bonds. So we stick a hydrogen onto each of them, and look at that, it's n-hexane, the same molecule I already showed you just before this one. Amazing. And that is why the ring makes it so that there are two fewer hydrogens than in an acyclic alkane. Simple.