Open mjw99 opened 4 years ago
azo nomenclature is nasty as depending on the context it can result in the subsequent ring being implicitly duplicated or just be the substituent -N=N- OPSIN also gives the correct interpretation for 4-(Phenylazo)phenol
I think to disambiguate I would actually need to consider that without locants azophenol is ambiguous, to avoid regressions when interpreting a name like: 4-METHOXY-4'-PHENYLAZOBENZENE https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/s949248
I'd suggest that "azobenzene" is the special case, and all other uses of "azo" refer to the diazenyl linker. Are there (m)any cases of "azo<ringname>
", or even "<locant>,<locant>
'-azo<ringname>
" in circulation (where <ringname>
!= benzene)?
p.s. both ChemDraw 19 and Lexichem agree (with Mark) that 2-phenylazophenol has only two rings, but that 4-methoxy-4'-phenylazobenzene has three.
azo<ringname>
will typically be talking about a class of compounds and is a bit ambigous in meaning. Examples with locants can be easily found for common rings e.g. pyridine, naphthalene.
I somewhat agree that benzene is a special case, but only in so much that in most rings all positions are not degenerate.
With the current https://opsin.ch.cam.ac.uk/ instance, for 4-phenylazophenol , it is returning:
C1(=CC=CC=C1)C1=CC(=C(C=C1)O)N=NC1=C(C=CC=C1)O
Sigma have 4-phenylazophenol as the following and note the structures are different.
OPSIN does correctly return with the correct IUPAC name: 4-(Phenyldiazenyl)phenol of what Sigma are returning.
Note, Chemspider lists 4-phenylazophenol as a synonym of 4-(Phenyldiazenyl)phenol .