Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter 21/05/2022 11:47 am
Good time, I'm interested in your opinion, is the use of trivial names of substances along with international ones justified? Doesn't this lead to confusion, wouldn't it be easier to use only one nomenclature in practice. What do you think about this
23/05/2022 9:37 am
It is better to use one. I usually use as trivial names of chemicals as possible, this is very convenient. Naturally, as you can guess, if there is such a name for this substance.
Topic starter 24/05/2022 12:15 am
@damiryagudin why, for example, not always use only systematic names, for example, for carboxylic acids, aldehydes, alkenes, and the like, if they are not very long?
25/05/2022 3:29 pm
You can't use IUPAC for day to day use. All labs have their own names for the most complicated compounds
Topic starter 25/05/2022 5:03 pm
@chaoticgood In my opinion, for most, it is just what you need. if a substance is called something within one laboratory, understanding will be difficult for other laboratories and researchers
26/05/2022 7:53 pm
I can say for sure that trivial names are quite often used in industry, and, accordingly, for laboratories, too, as mentioned above.
Topic starter 26/05/2022 10:09 pm
But trivial names are often applied to well-studied substances and have long been familiar, before the appearance of the IUPAC nomenclature.