Talk:Guaiacolsulfonic acid

message: Something seems strange about the name of this compound.  The PubChem link in the drugbox () leads to a page which contains the name guaiacolsulfonic acid.  But the chemical structure shows it to be the potassium salt of gluconic acid, which is of course unrelated to either guaiacol or sulfonic acids.  Is there an error in the PubChem page, or is the naming of this compound just unusual for some historical reason? --Ed (Edgar181) 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong PubChem.  is the correct one; I'll update the article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the chemical structure at that PubChem listing either.  It is shown as a chemically unstable hemiacetal - no way that could be a drugable substance.  That structure seems to stem from a misinterpretation of the chemical name of guaiacol, "hydroxymethoxybenzene", putting the hydroxy on the methoxy, rather than putting both separately on the benzene.  Chemical Abstracts lists the CAS numbers 50855-43-1 (currently in this article) and 1321-14-8 (given at ) as "Incompletely Defined Substance" - the only difference being that 1321-14-8 is the potassium salt of 50855-43-1.  So, basically, I think guaiacolsulfonate is actually a mixture of sulfonated products of guaiacol, with some combination of sulfonic acid groups on the phenolic oxygen and/or differing aromatic carbons, which is incorrectly represented at .  Also, the listing at  must mistakenly list "guaiacolsulfonic acid" as a chemical synonym, when in reality it is something completely unrelated. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit I found the structure a bit unlikely—the fact it didn't resemble guaiacol should have tipped me off—, but I usually trust PubChem without a second glance (bad idea apparently). A quick Google search found this, which seems much more appropriate; also, see . Meanwhile, I've removed the image—thanks, that'll teach me not to use some critical thinking :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with the structure in that Japanese link.  It is consistent with the name and with Chemical Abstracts.  I found a contact email address on the PubChem site - I'll drop them a note about the likely need for corrections.  --Ed (Edgar181) 19:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. As for , I guess it should be listed as potassium gluconate. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for my contribution to the error, and I commend both of you for your relentless work in fleshing out these stubs. --Arcadian 23:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yesterday I sent an email to the NIH and I got a reply today acknowledging the errors.  But surprisingly, they do not intend to make any corrections because the data is supplied by other organizations and they are not permitted to alter it.  --Ed (Edgar181) 12:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. That's...unbelievable. One more reason why I like wiki. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  seams also to indicate a problem with the name.--Stone 14:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, that IUPAC name was obtained from the now infamous PubChem entry above. Thanks for fixing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect data