Talk:1-Butanol

How this product is made?

The article doesn't tells how this product is made. This article is just a stub. Agre22 (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Refractive index not correct

The refractive index was listed wrong-- it should be 1.399. I made the change, but I don't know how to cite it properly. Here' my source: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?D7=0&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO%7CBRAND_KEY&N4=B7906%7CSIGMA&N25=0&QS=ON&F=SPEC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.112.79 (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect solubility in water

The solubility in water is not correct. According to the CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, the solubility in water is 73 g.L-1. I will edit this value. Matthieu Roché — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthieu roche (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"Higher alcohol" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Higher alcohol. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 19#Higher alcohol until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

"Branched-chain alcohol" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Branched-chain alcohol. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 19#Branched-chain alcohol until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus for "1-butanol" (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

---

N-Butanol → 1-Butanol – This page should be moved to be consistent with the nomenclature format used for articles for other straight-chain primary alcohols, such as 1-propanol, 1-pentanol, 1-hexanol, and so on. Use of the "n-" prefix is technically incorrect nomenclature, as it is meant to be used with an alkyl group designation (as in n-butyl alcohol) whereas substitutive names take a numeric prefix, as in the proposed name, though "1-" and "n-" are informally used interchangeably. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to support this, as I believe the IUPAC name should indeed be 1-butanol. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support IUPAC names like this should be preferred if it isn't too technical for non-academicians. M Kariyappa (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move to wrong name

@Buidhe: This should be 1-Butanol, not 1-butanol. Wostr (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur. I'd place a technical request at requested moves but they have a decent backlog at the moment. Hopefully this gets fixed soon. If someone has page mover rights, go for it. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Given the recent move, it would probably need a full discussion again, not just a technical request. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it's been sorted anyway. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The article name may be sorted, but the name of the chemical within the article is still always 'n-butanol'. It is surprising that the name used in running text would be consistenly at variance with the article name. PubChem does prefer '1-butanol'. Probably the consensus in the above move discussion is strong enough to justify someone going through and updating the article text to 1-butanol. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the move issues were worked out here and I was going to take care of the post-move cleanup within the article but haven't got to it yet. Will do so later today. Thanks, Mdewman6 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, this move is ill-conceived. The title should be the IUPAC name butan-1-ol and the other isomers should likewise be called by the IUPAC name. When named in this way the chemical structure is more easily understood. The old names, that are still in common use, need to be also listed, as in my edit, which had to be reverted. Petergans (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Use of the IUPAC name butan-1-ol would go against the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) (see also MOS:CHEM), which says to avoid systematic names. More broadly, it would fail WP:COMMONNAME. No chemist would ever say or write "butan-1-ol" in day-to-day use (except when discussing nomenclature itself), only in publications and other formal documents. None of the articles for alcohols on Wikipedia use this nomenclature as their page name. Changing this would require a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals or another suitable venue. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not WP policy to always "avoid systematic names". Where possible, IUPAC rules on nomenclature should be followed. A common name is acceptable when it is in general use, as in this case. Where we run into trouble is with prefixes like iso-, which may be ambiguous. What is needed is disambiguation pages like propanol. Then, there are cases like pentanol, where various names that are in common use are given, but IUPAC names are not even mentioned. IUPAC names are designed so that an exact chemical structure can be deduced from the name; it would be generally helpful to include IUPAC names in the lead for all small molecules. Petergans (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Other names

What are the criteria for adding other names? If common usage is a criterion, what are acceptable sources of common chemical names? I use n-BuOH as shorthand for 1-Butanol which may or may not be common. Sandcherry (talk)

There are no concrete criteria, but I have been using SciFinder and PubChem in combination to settle on a fairly comprehensive but not exhaustive list of other names. In the infobox, all reasonably plausible synonyms for the compound should be listed, and these should all have redirects. Only the most common names should be in the lead in bold font as formal alternative names (in the Wikipedia sense). More than ~3 makes the lead too much of a mess I think. I agree n-BuOH is a common abbreviation for 1-butanol and should be in the infobox/have a redirect, but not sure it should be in the lead. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Rule 1: In general IUPAC names are preferable. The IUPAC naming conventions are unambiguous and universally accepted in scientific circles.

Rule 2: IUPAC rules on nomenclature should be followed. "propyl methanol" and "Methylolpropane" clearly do not follow the simplicity rule.

Butanol is an alcohol, not an hydroxide.

Common names are acceptable if their use is widespread. This applies to many small molecules like butanol. Archaic names like carbinol may be mentioned in an historical context. n-BuOH is not a name, it is an abbreviation of a name. Non-standard or old names are sometimes used today for industrial or commercial products. This does not mean that they should be cited in WP.Petergans (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The stated rules seem reasonable, although not absolute, for the lead, but not the info box. This discussion would benefit from other editors' input as many organic chemicals have more than a few common names in their info boxes. Should this discussion be moved to another location? Sandcherry (talk)

Regarding butanol in the other names. The explanation for today's reversion contains the word "normally". That means that this term is potentially ambiguous, which is why it was removed from "other names". Please undo the reversion. Petergans (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting chemical names in normal use like ether for ethyl ether not be included in Wikipedia? If so, I suggest you initiate a discussion in an appropriate forum to ascertain other editors' opinions. A possible forum is the WikiProject Chemicals talk page. I would be happy to participate in the discussion. Cheers! Sandcherry (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not. A fuller quote is ""The unmodified term butanol usually refers to the straight chain isomer". Petergans (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that butanol when used alone usually refers to straight chain primary (normal) isomer, but it can also be used to refer to butanols in general, as the term is ambiguous. In the Wikipedia sense, there is a separate page for butanol, which serves as a disambiguation page. When I was updating the other names for the simple alcohols, I removed these ambiguous terms (e.g. pentanol, hexanol, etc.) from the infobox, as they don't redirect to the pages for the normal alcohols but have their own pages. I could go either way on this, but tend to think having butanol in the other names section while that term directs to a different page (as it should) can lead to confusion. Perhaps in the leads of each article (1-butanol and the like) it could be stated that these ambiguous terms often refer to the normal isomers. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the last comment. Perhaps the best solution would be to create a true disambiguation page for "butanol" like the one that exists for propanol. Then, modify this (and the other) article(s) accordingly. See also amyl alcohol for an alternative . Petergans (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. I will add the suggested quote by Mdewman6 and delete butanol from the infobox. Sandcherry (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Chemspider has a very comprehensive list of names and "other names" for a given compound, for example for 1-butanol "here".. As this case shows, there can be literally dozens of names sometimes used and Wikipedia does not, in my opinion, need to list them all, only those reasonably frequently found in reliable sources. We have a policy WP:COMMON for naming things and I support also always having the IUPAC name (and the "Preferred IUPAC name" aka the PIN, if different). The advantage that WP also uses disambiguation pages, lists of elemental formulae and re-directs means that most readers should be able to find what they want without cluttering up what can already be a large Chembox. Note that sophisticated chemists can use InChI keys to reliably get to WP articles and other users can use a search engine that for obscure names will find Chemspider, which in turn usually links back here! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Methylolpropane

This name is not consistent with either IUPAC or WP guidelines. A web search for it produced no hits. It should be deleted. Petergans (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

While not a name I would ever use and certainly not in common use, both SciFinder (the CAS database) and PubChem list it as a synonym. The purpose here is if anyone were to come across this name in the literature or elsewhere and wonder to what compound it refers, they can search for it on Wikipedia and be led to the right place, seeing it in the "other names" section. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not listed at Supplied-Synonyms, as suggested above. A Web search for methylolpropane produced only Trimethylolpropane, which is a different compound. I don't have access CAS services. Is there a CAS number for a compound with this name?Petergans (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It is in 2.4.2 on PubChem, depositor supplied-synonyms, in the second column. Its CAS number is the same as 1-butanol. If you searched for methyolpropane in SciFinder it would return the entry for 1-butanol, where it is listed under other names. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If those are the only citations that can be found, it's not worth inclusion. My main objection remains: it's an obsolete non-standard name that clearly is not in common use. Petergans (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Your stated objections may or may not be consistent with the views of other editors. Obtaining consensus on Other Names guidelines in a forum frequented by experienced organic chemistry editors is suggested. Industrial and academic chemists and chemical engineers may have different perspectives. Would you like to propose a forum to discuss your concerns? Sandcherry (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not a matter of opinion. The fact that the searches cited above found only "dictionary" entries for it shows that the term is obsolete. Petergans (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The fact that it is in a "dictionary" means that it is a other name for the compound. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It was another name. The term is now obsolete. Petergans (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

See my comment in section immediately above. Has "metholpropane" ever been used in reliable sources (by which I mean ones we would currently cite in a chemistry article)? Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Methylolpropane is listed in the NIST Chemistry Web Book (https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Name=1-butanol) and supplier web sites as an alternate name for 1-Butanol. Sandcherry (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The full list is "Other names: Butyl alcohol; n-Butan-1-ol; n-Butanol; n-Butyl alcohol; Butyl hydroxide"

this is followed by " CCS 203; Hemostyp; Methylolpropane; Propylcarbinol; n-C4H9OH; Butanol; Butan-1-ol; 1-Hydroxybutane; Alcool butylique; Butanolo; Butylowy alkohol; Butyric alcohol; Propylmethanol; Butanolen; 1-Butyl alcohol"

Question: Why don't we list all of them in WP? Answer: We only list the IUPAC name and names in common use in the English language . Petergans (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Not true. Names other than IUPAC names or "names in common use in the English language" are included in WP for the reason provided by Mdewman6. If you think this is inappropriate, please discuss in a broader chemistry forum. If common use is an agreed upon criterion, I would be interested in the definitive source or sources for these names. Sandcherry (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears that it is not possible to reach a consensus. I will not make any further efforts to improve the quality of this article. Petergans (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

1-Hydroxybutane

This name is wrong. The compound is an alcohol. All alcohols, by definition, contain an hydroxyl group. Petergans (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This is typical substitutive nomenclature that clearly defines the structure of the compound and someone might reasonably use to describe the compound and is listed as an alternative name in the sources described in the section above. Mdewman6 (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It clearly breaks a universally accepted rule. Organic molecules whose only substituent is an -OH group are classified as alcohols by definition, as specified in the article on alcohol already cited above.. Petergans (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Systematic name vs. PIN

@Petergans: Why did you revert my edit which moved "Butan-1-ol" from the SystematicName parameter to the PIN parameter? I generally prefer the latter, since IUPAC has no defined concept of a "systematic IUPAC name". I'd add a reference to the Blue Book, but it only has examples of derivatives of this compound. LegionMammal978 (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an odd situation. When I was young the prefixes n-, iso-, sec- and tert- were in general use. Systematic names are generally preferred at the top of the info box. The alternative names are given under it.Petergans (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)