Is this considered IUPAC naming?

[Bastardane]

1-methyl-1-isopropoxycyclohexane

 

7-(1-methylethyl)-11-(2-methylpropyl)-hexdec-6-amine

 

3-ethylnon-5,7-ene-2-ol

 

5-bromo-10-ethoxy-2,8,10,14-tetramethylpentadecane

 

the first one is the one that concerns me.

and are isopropyl and isobutyl considered common names?

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

Without seeing the structures, I can only tell you if you've used proper IUPAC syntax.

 

The first one is fine. An isopropoxy group is just -OiPr

 

The second one is okay, except you're missing an a in hexadecamine. You could, and normlly would, also replace 1-methylethyl with isopropyl and the 2-methylpropyl with isobutyl (yes, these are common names).

 

The third one I think you should have diene instead of just ene, as you've put 2 numbers before it, which indicates two double bonds.

 

Fourth one is also fine.

[John Cuthber]

I think the IIPAC "purists" would disagree about "You could, and normlly would, also replace 1-methylethyl with isopropyl and the 2-methylpropyl with isobutyl"

 

However they seem more concerned with following their holy book than actually conveying information.

[Bastardane]

Yeah im taking my organic course and im finding a lot of conflicting statements about IUPAC naming.... my teacher mentioned she might ask us to give both the common name and IUPAC name for some compounds.... but from the looks of it i think the iso and tert- type will be accepted as systematic naming