Chemical Education Today
Corrections J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 765–769 In our article, “A More Realistic Teaching Style in Spectroscopic Instruction”, we unfortunately omitted a relevant reference related to the discussion of problem 3. We deeply regret this mistake and would like to give the authors of the original article the credit they deserve. The missing reference that should be included in ref 9 is: Dominguez, G.; De La Torre, M. C.; Rodriguez, B. J. Org. Chem. 1991, 56, 6595–6600.
In addition, the name of one of the authors (Rodriguez, B.) was omitted in ref 8. The correct citation is: Savona G.; Paternostro, M.; Piozzi, F., Rodriguez, B. Tetrahedron Lett. 1979, 379–382. Mar Gómez Gallego, Santiago Romano, Miguel A. Sierra, Enrique Nieto Departamento de Química Orgánica I Facultad de Química Ciudad Universitaria s/n 28040 Madrid, Spain
J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 203–205 It has come to my attention that there are two errors in my article, “Computational Investigations for Undergraduate Organic Chemistry: Modeling a TLC Exercise to Investigate Molecular Structure and Intermolecular Forces”. In Figure 1, the Rf values reported are inexplicably inconsistent with the theory of TLC (as pointed out elsewhere in the article), i.e., more polar solutes are expected to be more strongly adsorbed on silica, resist elution with the nonpolar solvent used (hexane) and hence be characterized by a smaller, rather than a larger, Rf value. Unfortunately, the student work from which this figure was prepared is no longer available. In addition, on page 205, the eighth sentence in the section Materials should read (correction in bold italics); “Students are reminded that the polar substances are not expected to elute with the nonpolar solvent, and that the solvent mixture may be needed to differentiate between compounds of similar polarity.” Rita K. Hessley College of Applied Science University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH 45206
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 78 No. 9 September 2001 • Journal of Chemical Education
1183
