# Q for Bio/Chem Folks: Sucrose

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/q-for-bio-chem-folks-sucrose/163354>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [March 22, 2003, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/q-for-bio-chem-folks-sucrose/163354 "2003-03-22T13:39:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\
**Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/q-for-bio-chem-folks-sucrose/163354/1 "2003-03-22T13:39:12Z")

</div>

Is “disaccharide sucrose” just a fancy term for what the layman would just call “sucrose”? It seems the “disaccharide” term simply tells us that the sucrose is a complex sugar (as opposed to a simple sugar) composed of a glucose molecule joined to a fructose molecule. And, if this is correct, then I assume there is no such thing as “monosaccharide sucrose”, correct?

In general, is there a need to say “disaccharide sucrose”? Are there other forms of sucrose? Like, “trisaccharide sucrose”???

- Jinx 😕

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![xcheopis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bc8723/32.png) [@xcheopis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xcheopis)\
**Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/q-for-bio-chem-folks-sucrose/163354/2 "2003-03-22T13:56:10Z")

</div>

No, that is redundant. The sucrose molecule is a disaccharide sugar.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\
**Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/q-for-bio-chem-folks-sucrose/163354/3 "2003-03-22T14:23:19Z")

</div>

The term “disaccharide sucrose” leans more towards the side of “nomenclature abuse” than it does to “fancy.”  
Sucrose _is_ a dissaccharide. The disaccharide, sucrose, is common table sugar. There is no such thing as non-disaccharide sucrose, nor are there sucrose monosaccharides, or sucrose trisaccharides.  
If you want to get fancy with sugar, you can call it (O-[symbol]b[/symbol]-D-fructofuranosyl-(2-\>1)-[symbol]a[/symbol]-D-glucopyranoside, which tells you that fructose is a disaccharide consisting of a molecule of fructose, joined to a molecule of glucose in a specific orientation.  
If you break the bond between the fructose and glucose, you end up with something called, [invert sugar](http://allrecipes.com/encyc/terms/I/6996.asp) an equimolar mixture of glucose and fructose.  
[nitpick] The link’s claim that inverting sucrose necessarily reduces the size of sugar crystals is only semi-valid within the context of cooking things, not as a general relationship between molecule size and crystal size.  
[/nitpick]