2-methylbutan-1-ol is oxidised by potassium dichromate:
2-methylbutan-1-ol + [O] ==> 2-methylbutan-1-al + water
CH3CH2CH(CH3)CH2OH + [O] ==> CH3CH2CH(CH3)CHO + H2O
second step:
CH3CH2CH(CH3)CHO + [O] ==> CH3CH2CH(CH3)COOH
2-methylbutan-1-al + [O] ==> 2-methylbutanoic acid
1) Draw all of the above as displayed formula.
2) What are the two products of the reaction above?
1)
----H--H--CH3--H
-----I----I----I----I --------------------------------------------------- how do I draw the
H - C - C - C - C - O - H -- + how do I draw the [O] ==> 2-methylbutan-1-al
-----I-----I----I----I ----------------------------------------------------------+ water
----H----H---H---H
second step:
how do I draw the --- how do I draw the
2-methylbutan-1-al --------- [O] ----------------
==>
-----H--H---H
------I---I----I
H - C - C - C - COOH
-----I----I----I
-----H--H-CH3
2) Are the two products:
2-methylbutan-1-al + water
2-methylbutanoic acid
There are three products so why are they asking for two as if there are two?
Also, COOH equations look like below at the COOH part:
--------O
-------//
H - C
-------\
--------OH
Methanoic acid
I drew 2-methylbutanoic acid below differently:
-----H--H---H
------I---I----I
H - C - C - C - COOH
-----I----I----I
-----H--H-CH3
Can the COOH part of this displayed formula be like methanoic acid's displayed formula?
-----H--H---H -----O
------I---I----I -----//
H - C - C - C - C
-----I----I----I -----\
-----H--H-CH3 ---OH
2-methylbutanoic acid
Is this correct?
Is this 2-methylbutan-1-al?
-----H--H-CH3---O
----- I---I----I-----//
H - C - C - C- C
------I----I---I-----\
-----H---H--H-----H
How do I draw the displayed formula of water?
Option 1:
H - O - H
Option 2:
O
/ \
H H
Are both the displayed formula?
Which one do I draw?
Can the COOH part of this displayed formula be like methanoic acid's displayed formula?
Yes, in fact ,
-----H--H---H -----O
------I---I----I -----//
H - C - C - C - C
-----I----I----I -----\
-----H--H-CH3 ---OH
is a better way of showing the COOH group.
how do I draw the --- how do I draw the
2-methylbutan-1-al --------- [O] --------------
You're worried about how to draw the [O]? Don't. That's just a short hand way to say you're adding oxygen without noting how you're doing it. Could be acidified KMnO4.Could be acidified K2C2O, could be gaseous oxygen bubbled in, etc etc. It simply means oxidizing conditions are present without saying how.
As to the products. You have three. One is the aldehyde, one is the carboxylic acid, one is water. When an organic question is stated this way it almost ALWAYS means "what are the MAJOR products" and since water is not an organic compound it GENERALLY is not included as a product.
-----H--H---H -----O
------I---I----I -----//
H - C - C - C - C
-----I----I----I -----\
-----H--H-CH3 ---OH
2-methylbutanoic acid
Is this correct?
YES, i is correct.
Is this 2-methylbutan-1-al?
-----H--H-CH3---O
----- I---I----I-----//
H - C - C - C- C
------I----I---I-----\
-----H---H--H-----H
YES
I have a stupid question and a comment to make.
Stupid question following by comment.
Why are you continuing to waste you time drawing the structural formulas? It takes up TONS of time and they are not a bit more accurate than in-line or condensed formulas. I will agree that it may be easier to see a COOH with a C=O and a C-OH. What we do with these molecules is we're trying, and no mater how hard we try we can't do it, to write a three dimensional structure in two dimensional form. Can't do it. It's just like the H2O question. I hesitate to write it as H-O-H for it may suggest that the structure is a 180 degree linear molecule (in one plane) when I know it isn't. If I try to show it isn't a linear molecule this way
----------------H
-----------------|
----------------O-H it give a misrepresentation of the bond lengths (and thus bond strengths) which isn't right and if I try to do it a different way like this
--------------------H
----------------------\
-----------------------O
-----------------------/
---------------------H
but even that is not a bond angle of 105. So why spend all that time trying to draw water with a bond angle of 105 degrees when I can't do it on my computer no matter how much time I spend. Buying a copy of ChemDraw is an option to use if one is writing a text but sites like this one we're using is NOT equipped with the tools so it's just better not to be such a stickler when the tools are not available. In the case of Questions LLC we're just doing the best we can. Have a good day.
The displayed formula and structural formula are similar. The question asked for a displayed formula. Every bond has to be shown as an individual line in a displayed formula.
Yes, I am not equipped with the tools to draw water with a bond angle of 105. I wanted to know which way of drawing the structural formula of water was more accurate or preferred.