Title: Why is the expected stretching absorption of the C=O bond 1685 cm-1 for the structure I and 1715 ...
Post by: sharonfaith30 on Feb 17, 2022
Why is the expected stretching absorption of the C=O bond 1685 cm-1 for the structure I and 1715 cm-1 for structure II?
▸ Compound I lacks conjugation, which is present in compound II.
▸ The expected stretching absorption is lowered in all molecules with cyclohexane rings.
▸ Having fewer double bonds results in lowering of all of the stretching absorptions.
▸ The C to O double bond of compound I has greater single bond character than the C to O double bond of compound II.
▸ Compound II has a C to O double bond with considerable single bond character, lowering the expected stretching absorption.
▸ Compound I lacks conjugation, which is present in compound II.
▸ The expected stretching absorption is lowered in all molecules with cyclohexane rings.
▸ Having fewer double bonds results in lowering of all of the stretching absorptions.
▸ The C to O double bond of compound I has greater single bond character than the C to O double bond of compound II.
▸ Compound II has a C to O double bond with considerable single bond character, lowering the expected stretching absorption.
Title: Why is the expected stretching absorption of the C=O bond 1685 cm-1 for the structure I and 1715 ...
Post by: babolat00 on Feb 17, 2022
Content hidden