O/T: Chemistry. Why two naming systems(or more). CNaO2/COONa.

[JRouche]

Sorry for the O/T. I just know there are some smart guys here that speak laymans terms like myself.

Yes chemistry. I was doing an experiment with my son he read at school. Making Sodium Acetate from vinegar.

We made it and I wanted to see the chemical name. I was surprised to see COONa. I guessed at two O, one C..(basically carbon dioxide) and one Na.

Why did they write it different than CO2Na or whatever? What is with the double "O" in the name.

I am no chemist anymore, I Quit years ago. Oh, I did taste the crystal we made. Not flavorful at all. And did not taste salty. Just really rank!!

6 gallons of distilled white vinegar were boiled down to two pounds of crystal Sodium acetate. My son did it all.

So?? Chemical names? Splain why two (or more). Thanks. JR

http://www.webqc.org/molecular-weight-of-COONa.html

[GNM109]

Just alternate names. Wikipedia mentions CH3COONa, also abbreviated NaOAc. I don't normally like to use links from Wikipedia, but your question was an interesting one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_acetate

[Mike Burch]

Just guessing here, given that I last studied chemistry in 1963.
In organic chemistry (i.e., the chemistry of carbon), it is common to "spell out" the various common groups in a molecule, like OH etc. (For example that great blessing C2H5OH [a.k.a. ethyl alcohol] is spelt thus rather than writing C2H6O. This shows that the ethyl radical C2H5 is joined to another radical to form the new substance.) Half a century ago, when I knew what I was talking about, this would have given me a better idea of what sort of molecule it was, which atom stuck to which, and where it all fitted in the great scheme of things.
No doubt someone here with more recent experience of test tubes will put us right!

[MattiJ]

Just guessing here, given that I last studied chemistry in 1963.
In organic chemistry (i.e., the chemistry of carbon), it is common to "spell out" the various common groups in a molecule, like OH etc. (For example that great blessing C2H5OH [a.k.a. ethyl alcohol] is spelt thus rather than writing C2H6O. This shows that the ethyl radical C2H5 is joined to another radical to form the new substance.) Half a century ago, when I knew what I was talking about, this would have given me a better idea of what sort of molecule it was, which atom stuck to which, and where it all fitted in the great scheme of things.
No doubt someone here with more recent experience of test tubes will put us right!

Yup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_isomer

So C3H6O can be for example Acetone or Cyclopropanol, two completely different sort of chemicals.

[AD5MB]

Why did they write it different than CO2Na or whatever? What is with the double "O" in the name.

because their software does not do superscripts.

[Machine]

Sounds like a Dan the Chemist question. I think that sometimes you can have two Oxygen atoms in a molecule that are not necessarily bound diatomically (like Hydrogen is H2 in water or Oxygen is O2 is in its gaseous state). If so, a molecule that had 2 hydrogens, 1 sulfur and 4 oxygens may not always be written as "H2SO4" (sulfuric acid, in this case). Not sure if that means the formula would be spelled differently or if it’s a nomenclature variation of the same thing. Been so long since I've taken chemistry.

In the meantime, is this the chemical representation of CO3Li...or COOLiO?

[ed_h]

Several right answers here. The COO informs a knowledgeable person that there is a carboxyl group characteristic of organic acids. Writing it in alternate ways obscures that.

Ed

[mattthemuppet]

also you have old American format, new international format, descriptive format etc etc. eg. isopropanol, propan-2-ol, 2-Propanol, Isopropyl alcohol. Drives me batty when I'm trying to find a chemical in the stock room.

[Paul Alciatore]

When chemists were talking about simple compounds, like salt (NaCl) there was little worry about the structure of the molecule. In fact, in the early days of chemistry, they had little or no knowledge of that internal structure. They had barely discovered how to determine the number of individual atoms present so discussion of the structure was not possible. Hence, they only needed a simple count of those atoms. H2O = two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen.

Later in the development of chemistry they worked with more complex molecules, some with dozens and even hundreds of atoms in a single molecule. A lot of this came from organic chemistry. And the methods of analyzing them became a lot more sophisticated. They were able to not only count the atoms present, but they could see exactly how they were arranged. In fact, there are probably different molecules with the same numbers of atoms, that differ only by the manner in which they are arranged. So, a simple count of the atoms would not allow those different molecules to be differentiated. So a better system was needed and the chemists created one, actually probably more than one.

[JRouche]

Very informative. Thank you for all the replies. JR