Nomenclature in Industry H. S. NUTTING
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 2, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: January 1, 1953 | doi: 10.1021/ba-1953-0008.ch011
The Dow ChemicalCo.,Midland, Mich.
The economic importance of chemical nomenclature to industry is discussed. A standardized nomenclature is necessary for the internal communications and the permanent records of a large industrial organization. It is important in communications with others, particularly when large numbers of compounds are involved. Efficient use of the published literature is important to industry, and this in turn is dependent upon the use of good nomenclature by authors and editors.
Nomenclature is one of the important tools of chemistry. If it is an important tool, then it must be of value to chemists. There are some who are inclined to believe that this value is primarily esthetic in nature, or at least a matter of scholarship. B u t those who have had to cope with nomenclature problems in industry have come to realize that it has economic values as well. The purpose of this paper is to describe the role which nomenclature plays in industry, and to discuss briefly the economic aspects of nomenclature.
Types of Nomenclature A clear understanding of the different types of nomenclature which are in everyday use is important. T h e names which are currently used to distinguish one item or substance from another can be divided into three general types: systematic names, common names, and trade names. A s far as chemical names are concerned the systematic names disclose not only the number of atoms in a given compound but their relationship one to the other as well. There are often several systematic names which can be used to describe a given compound accurately. Since many organic compounds are quite complex, the systematic names are sometimes too complex and cumbersome to be practicable for everyday communication. This has led to various procedures for simplifying the names. I t is common practice even in systematic nomenclature to designate large molecular units by a common name such as "naphthalene" and to indicate substitutions thereon in a systematic manner. Common or trivial names are in certain respects the nicknames or the slang of the profession. These names originate in various ways: Some are assigned before the compounds are identified; some have been inherited from the past; some are abandoned or unregistered trade names; while still others are simply nicknames or abbreviations. Occasionally the common names give a clue as to the structure of the compound, but in most cases the common name is entirely nondescriptive. Trade names should be mentioned only briefly, inasmuch as they are, for the most part, the private property of a given organization. They are therefore not available for general use except for identifying the product as it is supplied by the owner of the trade-mark. 95
In CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE; Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1953.
96
ADVANCES IN CHEMISTRY SERIES
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 2, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: January 1, 1953 | doi: 10.1021/ba-1953-0008.ch011
Nomenclature Problems in Industry Actually, the nomenclature problems of industry are not far different from those encountered i n other lines of activity. A n d yet the attitude of the modern industrial scientist toward nomenclature is often different from that of one outside of industry The reason is that the industrialist is trained to be a member of a closely coordinated team, and he is reminded almost daily of the importance of keeping communications as clear as possible, while others are not so accustomed to thinking i n terms of teamwork. L i k e anyone else i n the laboratory, the industrialist often uses nicknames to desig nate the things he is working with day b y day. Where chemicals are concerned i t is common for one person to prefer one name for a given compound and another a different name. I t is conceivable that i n small organizations the use of nicknames—or several names for that matter—for the same material can be used b y everyone without impairing appreciably the efficiency of operation. A s the size and complexity of the industrial organization increases, however, the laissez-faire approach to nomenclature tends to become less and less satisfactory. A disproportionately greater amount of time seems to be required b y everyone concerned because of nomenclature problems. T o make this point more specific, two practical case studies will be described. Usually it is no particular problem to discover whether or not a stock room has a given compound on the shelves when there are only a few hundred chemicals listed, no matter what nomenclature is used. If necessary, one can afford to inspect every item i n dividually just to make sure. O n the other hand, when the stock room has, let us say, 10,000 chemicals on its shelves it is no longer feasible to search through every item except in case of dire necessity. Unless the nomenclature used i n such a stock room is well under stood b y everyone concerned, considerable time may be spent i n searching for the com pound, and even then the patron may become discouraged prematurely. As a general rule, the number of people using a stock room increases roughly with the number of items available. So the possibilities of wasting time because of nomencla ture problems increase markedly with the number of compounds on the shelves. This is true even when the stock room and the users are within the same department and there is an opportunity for the users to become familiar with the stock room setup. The problem is, of course, aggravated when people make requests from other depart ments b y phone. In order to give satisfactory service from a stock room of this type, it is necessary to do at least one of three things: use a single standard name for each compound, have a very large cross reference file, or have someone available who is familiar enough with nomenclature to translate the names back and forth on demand. Consider a laboratory which is carrying out an evaluation program. If the number of chemicals being tested is i n the order of 50 to 500 over a period of 5 years and they are all prepared within the evaluation group, then the chances are that nomenclature pre sents no problem at all. When the evaluation program involves 5000 or more chemicals and these are being supplied b y 20 or more departments, nomenclature may be the cause of some rather expensive situations. F o r example, there is the problem of samples of the same material submitted b y more than one source under different names. V e r y careful cross-checking is required to make sure the work has not been done before or the work may be done over again. I n either case, productive effort is wasted because of nomencla ture. T h i n k of the problem of reporting the results back to the originating laboratories! If the laboratory doing the testing is using a different name from the one used b y the originating laboratory, then both names must be associated with the results or more time will be wasted i n the process of interpreting the results. This is particularly true if the report is re-examined a year or two after the date of issue. This copying and recopying of multiple names is simple i n itself, but i n the aggregate it is not only an unnecessary expense but an aggravation to a l l concerned. When it comes to verbal reporting and the discussion of the results obtained with representatives from other groups within the organization, an appreciable amount of time can be spent in simply explaining the identity of the compounds, time which might be spent to a better advantage on other things.
In CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE; Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1953.
NUTTING—NOMENCLATURE IN INDUSTRY
97
These two cases are typical of the many ways i n which nomenclature problems can enter into the internal communications of an industrial organization. There is the problem of communicating with people in other organizations. I n this case, the problems are similar to those described except that they are more numerous and more difficult to handle efficiently. There are more organizations to send samples to and often each organization has its own peculiar nomenclature practices.
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 2, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: January 1, 1953 | doi: 10.1021/ba-1953-0008.ch011
Standardized Nomenclature M a n y man-hours could be saved if a single name were used for each compound by everyone concerned. The economics of the situation is forcing the larger organizations to a more standardized nomenclature. B y what appears to be common consent, or perhaps common sense, the names used by Chemical Abstracts for chemicals are gradually being accepted as the standard names by several of the major chemical organizations. The Chemical Abstracts names have been used in this manner for over 5 years i n The D o w Chemical Co. When the idea was first proposed, there were objections at every hand, and many predicted that it could not be made to work. It has been and is working, and everyone has been pleasantly surprised at how much time has been saved by this procedure. The question which is heard now from the research group and i n particular from the recent graduates is " W h y can't we replace the common names with systematic names?" There is one phase of nomenclature which is unique with industry and that is the spend ing of money with the hope of making names better known to the public through adver tising. When one is spending $1000 or more on a name, one tends to consider that name much more carefully than when the name is simply to appear i n a magazine article which is published free of charge.
Increasing Volume of Scientific Literature There is still another aspect of nomenclature which is of importance to industry and that is the names and terms as they appear in printed literature. There is no point i n reciting here the inadequacies of the nomenclature of our current literature. Untold man-hours are being wasted because of this. One wonders how long it will be before the situation is improved by common effort. T o make matters worse, more material is published today than ever before, and the rate of publication is increasing day by day as well. This rate of increase i n the literature is by no means insignificant as can be readily seen from the following-facts: Crane (1) stated recently: The consensus of opinion seems to be that there are at least 600,000 synthetically prepared organic compounds and 30,000 known natural organic compounds. I n addition it is estimated that there are apparently 30,000 known inorganic compounds and about 1500 known mineral species. This makes a total of 661,500. A s an estimated total a rounder number probably should be used. Chemical Abstracts now announces at least 30,000 new compounds each year. If this present trend is continued, the number of known compounds will be doubled in about 22 years. Freemont Rider (2) states that "university libraries are doubling i n size every 16 years." Some of our scientific libraries are growing even more rapidly ; they are doubling every 10 years. In order to get a more concrete idea as to the real significance of this rate, let us assume that our scientific literature has been doubling in size every 10 years since the founding of the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY. If the amount of scientific literature i n existence i n 1876 is represented by the area of a circle 0.4 inch i n diameter, then the amount now available would be represented by the area of a circle approximately 4.5 inches i n diameter. The amount which will probably be acquired in the next 10 years would, of course, be represented by the area of another circle 4.5 inches i n diameter. I n other
In CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE; Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1953.
ADVANCES IN CHEMISTRY SERIES
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 2, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: January 1, 1953 | doi: 10.1021/ba-1953-0008.ch011
96
words, the chances are as much information will be accumulated from 1951 to 1961 as was accumulated over the entire period from 1876 to 1951. If the information available i n 1876 were doubled i t would not be so serious. T h e volume is now so great, however, that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to take the doubling i n stride. The b i l l which we are currently paying for our general laxity i n nomenclature is already a sizable one. Of course, this amount cannot be calculated accurately, but just to get an idea of the magnitude, let us assume that each member of the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY spends only 10 minutes per year on unnecessary nomenclature puzzles. I n the aggregate, this would amount to approximately 11,000 man-hours or the equivalent of 5 years of a single individual's normal working time. Consider the amount of scientific literature which will probably be available 75 years hence. If we continue to use circles and to assume that our libraries will continue to double every 10 years, then the amount of information which will be available i n 2026 would be represented b y a circle approximately 48 inches i n diameter. The boundary between the known and that which lies beyond is always increasing i n size. This means that there will always be an increasingly larger borderline fringe be tween the known and unknown where there will be more perplexing nomenclature prob lems than ever, regardless of how well those problems i n the better known areas are solved. Nomenclature plays an important role i n the larger industrial organizations and i n our literature today. Scientific information is accumulating at an ever increasing pace. Industry is already learning to use nomenclature as a tool and this is being dictated b y simple economics. I t is only a matter of time before these same economics will force scientists to use a standard nomenclature wherever documentation is concerned. Literature Cited (1) Crane, E. J., Little Chem. Abstracts, N o . 60 (Christmas, 1950). (2) Rider, Freemont, "The Scholar and the Future of the Research Library," New Y o r k , H a d h a m Press, 1944. RECEIVED August 21, 1951.
In CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE; Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1953.
