Dear Jonathan,
Yes, we did not finally decide on the IUPAC nomenclature, but it seems to
me that we agreed that they should be used in principle. Therefore the
long names are used instead of the more convenient ones for HTAP:
PCB-153 HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL (without the positions of the chloratoms...)
a-HCH alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane
If I had misinterpreted the IUPAC issue, then the shorter names should be
included for the two existing compounds as well (especially for the first,
which is not exact as it is).
Regards,
Christiane
> Dear Christiane and Martin
>
>> "As you say, IUPAC would be an alternative."
>> I agree that the short names are much more convenient, but was told that
>> IUPAC nomenclature is obligatory in CF.
>
> I don't think we have decided IUPAC is obligatory. I did ask Christiane
> whether
> IUPAC could be used during early discussions, and it turned out that IUPAC
> names were generally OK. But we also have to be pragmatic, as when we
> followed Christiane's proposal to give names to aerosol size classes.
> There
> are certainly advantages in using IUPAC names: they are unambiguous and an
> existing standard. However names like CFC11 could be accepted if the IUPAC
> name were given in the definition, I should think, if those names are
> always
> preferred to the IUPAC ones.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
Received on Fri Jan 25 2008 - 06:05:39 GMT
