« IUPAC '09: Chemistry in the main (group) | Main | IUPAC '09: Thinking big to save the world »

IUPAC '09: Save the symbol!

Remember the latest addition to the periodic table, copernicium, element 112? Well the fall out from the name choice has begun.

The abbreviated symbol that discoverer Sigurd Hofmann chose was Cp. This hasn't been confirmed by IUPAC yet, and this is the body that has the say in the end, but it seems appropriate that here at the IUPAC congress that the discussion over this shortened symbol should be aired.

The problem is that for many synthetic chemists Cp already means something - it is used as a shorthand form for the cyclopentadienyl ring, a 5 carbon and 5 hydrogen ring that is aromatic like benzene and often used as a ligand.

So some chemists are inevitably unhappy about the use of Cp for another purpose. One of these is Paul Chirik from Cornell University who in his talk about main group chemistry apparently said he wanted to start a campaign to have the abbreviation Kp, not Cp used for element 112. This, apparently is etymologically correct, because Copernicus was actually Polish and his name was spelled Mikolaj Koppernigk.

Chirik assures me he said this in jest and is by no means an expert in this area. But I wholeheartedly encourage this kind of campaign! Come on chemists, stand up for the rights of cyclopentadienyl ligands! Kp vs Cp - what do you think?

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/8997

Comments

Would people then confuse the element Kp and the equilibrium constant Kp(*)?

I suppose, though, that the contexts in which the two are used would help to differentiate. Equilibrium constants shouldn't turn up in the middle of a chemical formula.


(*) The p for the equilibrium constant should be subscript, of course. When I previewed the comment, the subscript tags didn't appear to be working.

[I don't think the blog lets us use subscript - I tried sub and inf and neither worked. Sorry!]

I agree that context is the key, which is also why I'm not soooo bothered about Cp. It's going to take a long time before organometallic chemists get their hands on enough of it to stick it between any Cp rings!

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the editors before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive. We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately, or notify you in case we decide not publish your comment. Email addresses will not be made public on the blog.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'thescepticalchymist at boston dot nature dot com '.

Subscribe

Subscribe to this blog's feeds:

[What is this?]

Recent Comments

Out of 1046 total comments,
the most recent were:
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2