Superheavy element
Superheavy element
Main page
S

Superheavy element

logo
Community Hub0 subscribers
Read side by side
Superheavy element
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Superheavy elements
in the periodic table
Hydrogen Helium
Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon
Sodium Magnesium Aluminium Silicon Phosphorus Sulfur Chlorine Argon
Potassium Calcium Scandium Titanium Vanadium Chromium Manganese Iron Cobalt Nickel Copper Zinc Gallium Germanium Arsenic Selenium Bromine Krypton
Rubidium Strontium Yttrium Zirconium Niobium Molybdenum Technetium Ruthenium Rhodium Palladium Silver Cadmium Indium Tin Antimony Tellurium Iodine Xenon
Caesium Barium Lanthanum Cerium Praseodymium Neodymium Promethium Samarium Europium Gadolinium Terbium Dysprosium Holmium Erbium Thulium Ytterbium Lutetium Hafnium Tantalum Tungsten Rhenium Osmium Iridium Platinum Gold Mercury (element) Thallium Lead Bismuth Polonium Astatine Radon
Francium Radium Actinium Thorium Protactinium Uranium Neptunium Plutonium Americium Curium Berkelium Californium Einsteinium Fermium Mendelevium Nobelium Lawrencium Rutherfordium Dubnium Seaborgium Bohrium Hassium Meitnerium Darmstadtium Roentgenium Copernicium Nihonium Flerovium Moscovium Livermorium Tennessine Oganesson
Z ≥ 104 (Rf)

Superheavy elements, also known as transactinide elements, transactinides, or super-heavy elements, or superheavies for short, are the chemical elements with an atomic number of at least 104.[1] The superheavy elements are those beyond the actinides in the periodic table; the last actinide is lawrencium (atomic number 103). By definition, superheavy elements are also transuranium elements, i.e., having atomic numbers greater than that of uranium (92). Depending on the definition of group 3 adopted by authors, lawrencium may also be included to complete the 6d series.[2][3][4][5]

Glenn T. Seaborg first proposed the actinide concept, which led to the acceptance of the actinide series. He also proposed a transactinide series ranging from element 104 to 121 and a superactinide series approximately spanning elements 122 to 153 (though more recent work suggests the end of the superactinide series to occur at element 157 instead). The transactinide seaborgium was named in his honor.[6][7]

Superheavies are radioactive and have only been obtained synthetically in laboratories. No macroscopic sample of any of these elements has ever been produced. Superheavies are all named after physicists and chemists or important locations involved in the synthesis of the elements.

IUPAC defines an element to exist if its lifetime is longer than 10−14 second, which is the time it takes for the atom to form an electron cloud.[8]

The known superheavies form part of the 6d and 7p series in the periodic table. Except for rutherfordium and dubnium (and lawrencium if it is included), all known isotopes of superheavies have half-lives of minutes or less. The element naming controversy involved elements 102–109. Some of these elements thus used systematic names for many years after their discovery was confirmed. (Usually the systematic names are replaced with permanent names proposed by the discoverers relatively soon after a discovery has been confirmed.)

Introduction

[edit]

Synthesis of superheavy nuclei

[edit]
See also: Nucleosynthesis and Nuclear reaction
A graphic depiction of a nuclear fusion reaction
A graphic depiction of a nuclear fusion reaction. Two nuclei fuse into one, emitting a neutron. Reactions that created new elements to this moment were similar, with the only possible difference that several singular neutrons sometimes were released, or none at all.

A superheavy[a] atomic nucleus is created in a nuclear reaction that combines two other nuclei of unequal size[b] into one; roughly, the more unequal the two nuclei in terms of mass, the greater the possibility that the two react.[14] The material made of the heavier nuclei is made into a target, which is then bombarded by the beam of lighter nuclei. Two nuclei can only fuse into one if they approach each other closely enough; normally, nuclei (all positively charged) repel each other due to electrostatic repulsion. The strong interaction can overcome this repulsion but only within a very short distance from a nucleus; beam nuclei are thus greatly accelerated in order to make such repulsion insignificant compared to the velocity of the beam nucleus.[15] The energy applied to the beam nuclei to accelerate them can cause them to reach speeds as high as one-tenth of the speed of light. However, if too much energy is applied, the beam nucleus can fall apart.[15]

Coming close enough alone is not enough for two nuclei to fuse: when two nuclei approach each other, they usually remain together for about 10−20 seconds and then part ways (not necessarily in the same composition as before the reaction) rather than form a single nucleus.[15][16] This happens because during the attempted formation of a single nucleus, electrostatic repulsion tears apart the nucleus that is being formed.[15] Each pair of a target and a beam is characterized by its cross section—the probability that fusion will occur if two nuclei approach one another expressed in terms of the transverse area that the incident particle must hit in order for the fusion to occur.[c] This fusion may occur as a result of the quantum effect in which nuclei can tunnel through electrostatic repulsion. If the two nuclei can stay close past that phase, multiple nuclear interactions result in redistribution of energy and an energy equilibrium.[15]

External videos
video icon Visualization of unsuccessful nuclear fusion, based on calculations from the Australian National University[18]

The resulting merger is an excited state[19]—termed a compound nucleus—and thus it is very unstable.[15] To reach a more stable state, the temporary merger may fission without formation of a more stable nucleus.[20] Alternatively, the compound nucleus may eject a few neutrons, which would carry away the excitation energy; if the latter is not sufficient for a neutron expulsion, the merger would produce a gamma ray. This happens in about 10−16 seconds after the initial nuclear collision and results in creation of a more stable nucleus.[20] The definition by the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP) states that a chemical element can only be recognized as discovered if a nucleus of it has not decayed within 10−14 seconds. This value was chosen as an estimate of how long it takes a nucleus to acquire electrons and thus display its chemical properties.[21][d]

Decay and detection

[edit]
See also: Gaseous ionization detector

The beam passes through the target and reaches the next chamber, the separator; if a new nucleus is produced, it is carried with this beam.[23] In the separator, the newly produced nucleus is separated from other nuclides (that of the original beam and any other reaction products)[e] and transferred to a surface-barrier detector, which stops the nucleus. The exact location of the upcoming impact on the detector is marked; also marked are its energy and the time of the arrival.[23] The transfer takes about 10−6 seconds; in order to be detected, the nucleus must survive this long.[26] The nucleus is recorded again once its decay is registered, and the location, the energy, and the time of the decay are measured.[23]

Stability of a nucleus is provided by the strong interaction. However, its range is very short; as nuclei become larger, its influence on the outermost nucleons (protons and neutrons) weakens. At the same time, the nucleus is torn apart by electrostatic repulsion between protons, and its range is not limited.[27] Total binding energy provided by the strong interaction increases linearly with the number of nucleons, whereas electrostatic repulsion increases with the square of the atomic number, i.e. the latter grows faster and becomes increasingly important for heavy and superheavy nuclei.[28][29] Superheavy nuclei are thus theoretically predicted[30] and have so far been observed[31] to predominantly decay via decay modes that are caused by such repulsion: alpha decay and spontaneous fission.[f] Almost all alpha emitters have over 210 nucleons,[33] and the lightest nuclide primarily undergoing spontaneous fission has 238.[34] In both decay modes, nuclei are inhibited from decaying by corresponding energy barriers for each mode, but they can be tunneled through.[28][29]

Apparatus for creation of superheavy elements
Scheme of an apparatus for creation of superheavy elements, based on the Dubna Gas-Filled Recoil Separator set up in the Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions in JINR. The trajectory within the detector and the beam focusing apparatus changes because of a dipole magnet in the former and quadrupole magnets in the latter.[35]

Alpha particles are commonly produced in radioactive decays because the mass of an alpha particle per nucleon is small enough to leave some energy for the alpha particle to be used as kinetic energy to leave the nucleus.[36] Spontaneous fission is caused by electrostatic repulsion tearing the nucleus apart and produces various nuclei in different instances of identical nuclei fissioning.[29] As the atomic number increases, spontaneous fission rapidly becomes more important: spontaneous fission partial half-lives decrease by 23 orders of magnitude from uranium (element 92) to nobelium (element 102),[37] and by 30 orders of magnitude from thorium (element 90) to fermium (element 100).[38] The earlier liquid drop model thus suggested that spontaneous fission would occur nearly instantly due to disappearance of the fission barrier for nuclei with about 280 nucleons.[29][39] The later nuclear shell model suggested that nuclei with about 300 nucleons would form an island of stability in which nuclei will be more resistant to spontaneous fission and will primarily undergo alpha decay with longer half-lives.[29][39] Subsequent discoveries suggested that the predicted island might be further than originally anticipated; they also showed that nuclei intermediate between the long-lived actinides and the predicted island are deformed, and gain additional stability from shell effects.[40] Experiments on lighter superheavy nuclei,[41] as well as those closer to the expected island,[37] have shown greater than previously anticipated stability against spontaneous fission, showing the importance of shell effects on nuclei.[g]

Alpha decays are registered by the emitted alpha particles, and the decay products are easy to determine before the actual decay; if such a decay or a series of consecutive decays produces a known nucleus, the original product of a reaction can be easily determined.[h] (That all decays within a decay chain were indeed related to each other is established by the location of these decays, which must be in the same place.)[23] The known nucleus can be recognized by the specific characteristics of decay it undergoes such as decay energy (or more specifically, the kinetic energy of the emitted particle).[i] Spontaneous fission, however, produces various nuclei as products, so the original nuclide cannot be determined from its daughters.[j]

The information available to physicists aiming to synthesize a superheavy element is thus the information collected at the detectors: location, energy, and time of arrival of a particle to the detector, and those of its decay. The physicists analyze this data and seek to conclude that it was indeed caused by a new element and could not have been caused by a different nuclide than the one claimed. Often, provided data is insufficient for a conclusion that a new element was definitely created and there is no other explanation for the observed effects; errors in interpreting data have been made.[k]

History

[edit]

Early predictions

[edit]

The heaviest element known at the end of the 19th century was uranium, with an atomic mass of about 240 (now known to be 238) amu. Accordingly, it was placed in the last row of the periodic table; this fueled speculation about the possible existence of elements heavier than uranium and why A = 240 seemed to be the limit. Following the discovery of the noble gases, beginning with argon in 1895, the possibility of heavier members of the group was considered. Danish chemist Julius Thomsen proposed in 1895 the existence of a sixth noble gas with Z = 86, A = 212 and a seventh with Z = 118, A = 292, the last closing a 32-element period containing thorium and uranium.[52] In 1913, Swedish physicist Johannes Rydberg extended Thomsen's extrapolation of the periodic table to include even heavier elements with atomic numbers up to 460, but he did not believe that these superheavy elements existed or occurred in nature.[53]

In 1914, German physicist Richard Swinne proposed that elements heavier than uranium, such as those around Z = 108, could be found in cosmic rays. He suggested that these elements may not necessarily have decreasing half-lives with increasing atomic number, leading to speculation about the possibility of some longer-lived elements at Z = 98–102 and Z = 108–110 (though separated by short-lived elements). Swinne published these predictions in 1926, believing that such elements might exist in Earth's core, iron meteorites, or the ice caps of Greenland where they had been locked up from their supposed cosmic origin.[54]

Discoveries

[edit]

Work performed from 1961 to 2013 at four labs – Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in the US, the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Germany, Riken in Japan, and the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in the USSR (later Russia) – identified and confirmed the elements lawrencium to oganesson according to the criteria of the IUPAC–IUPAP Transfermium Working Groups and subsequent Joint Working Parties.

The creation of Lawrencium was first claimed in 1961 by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, although doubts from scientists at the JINR, who reported their own synthesis of Lr-256 later in the 1960s, would delay general acceptance until 1992 by IUPAC-IUPAP.[55]

These discoveries complete the seventh row of the periodic table. The next two elements, ununennium (Z = 119) and unbinilium (Z = 120), have not yet been synthesized. They would begin an eighth period.

List of elements

[edit]

Characteristics

[edit]

Due to their short half-lives (for example, the most stable known isotope of seaborgium has a half-life of 14 minutes, and half-lives decrease with increasing atomic number) and the low yield of the nuclear reactions that produce them, new methods have had to be created to determine their gas-phase and solution chemistry based on very small samples of a few atoms each. Relativistic effects become very important in this region of the periodic table, causing the filled 7s orbitals, empty 7p orbitals, and filling 6d orbitals to all contract inward toward the atomic nucleus. This causes a relativistic stabilization of the 7s electrons and makes the 7p orbitals accessible in low excitation states.[7]

Elements 103 to 112, lawrencium to copernicium, form the 6d series of transition elements. Experimental evidence shows that elements 103–108 behave as expected for their position in the periodic table, as heavier homologs of lutetium through osmium. They are expected to have ionic radii between those of their 5d transition metal homologs and their actinide pseudohomologs: for example, Rf4+ is calculated to have ionic radius 76 pm, between the values for Hf4+ (71 pm) and Th4+ (94 pm). Their ions should also be less polarizable than those of their 5d homologs. Relativistic effects are expected to reach a maximum at the end of this series, at roentgenium (element 111) and copernicium (element 112). Nevertheless, many important properties of the transactinides are still not yet known experimentally, though theoretical calculations have been performed.[7]

Elements 113 to 118, nihonium to oganesson, should form a 7p series, completing the seventh period in the periodic table. Their chemistry will be greatly influenced by the very strong relativistic stabilization of the 7s electrons and a strong spin–orbit coupling effect "tearing" the 7p subshell apart into two sections, one more stabilized (7p1/2, holding two electrons) and one more destabilized (7p3/2, holding four electrons). Lower oxidation states should be stabilized here, continuing group trends, as both the 7s and 7p1/2 electrons exhibit the inert-pair effect. These elements are expected to largely continue to follow group trends, though with relativistic effects playing an increasingly larger role. In particular, the large 7p splitting results in an effective shell closure at flerovium (element 114) and a hence much higher than expected chemical activity for oganesson (element 118).[7]

Oganesson is the last known element. The next two elements, 119 and 120, should form an 8s series and be an alkali and alkaline earth metal respectively. The 8s electrons are expected to be relativistically stabilized, so that the trend toward higher reactivity down these groups will reverse and the elements will behave more like their period 5 homologs, rubidium and strontium. The 7p3/2 orbital is still relativistically destabilized, potentially giving these elements larger ionic radii and perhaps even being able to participate chemically. In this region, the 8p electrons are also relativistically stabilized, resulting in a ground-state 8s28p1 valence electron configuration for element 121. Large changes are expected to occur in the subshell structure in going from element 120 to element 121: for example, the radius of the 5g orbitals should drop drastically, from 25 Bohr units in element 120 in the excited [Og] 5g1 8s1 configuration to 0.8 Bohr units in element 121 in the excited [Og] 5g1 7d1 8s1 configuration, in a phenomenon called "radial collapse". Element 122 should add either a further 7d or a further 8p electron to element 121's electron configuration. Elements 121 and 122 should be similar to actinium and thorium respectively.[7]

At element 121, the superactinide series is expected to begin, when the 8s electrons and the filling 8p1/2, 7d3/2, 6f5/2, and 5g7/2 subshells determine the chemistry of these elements. Complete and accurate calculations are not available for elements beyond 123 because of the extreme complexity of the situation:[56] the 5g, 6f, and 7d orbitals should have about the same energy level, and in the region of element 160 the 9s, 8p3/2, and 9p1/2 orbitals should also be about equal in energy. This will cause the electron shells to mix so that the block concept no longer applies very well, and will also result in novel chemical properties that will make positioning these elements in a periodic table very difficult.[7]

Beyond superheavy elements

[edit]

It has been suggested that elements beyond Z = 126 be called beyond superheavy elements.[57] Other sources refer to elements around Z = 164 as hyperheavy elements.[58]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Superheavy element

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A superheavy element is a chemical element with an atomic number of 104 or higher, also referred to as a transactinide element, which are all synthetic and not found in nature.[1][2] These elements are produced in particle accelerators through the fusion of lighter atomic nuclei, such as bombarding heavy targets like californium or berkelium with beams of calcium ions, resulting in extremely short-lived isotopes that decay rapidly via alpha emission or spontaneous fission.[1][2][3] The first superheavy element, rutherfordium (atomic number 104), was synthesized in 1969 at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory by fusing californium-249 with carbon-12 ions, marking the beginning of systematic efforts to extend the periodic table beyond the actinides.[1] Subsequent discoveries, including dubnium (105), seaborgium (106), and up to oganesson (118)—the heaviest element officially recognized as of 2016—have been achieved through international collaborations at facilities like the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia, and GSI Helmholtz Centre in Darmstadt, Germany.[2][4][3] Due to their high atomic numbers, superheavy elements exhibit extreme instability, with half-lives typically ranging from microseconds to seconds; for instance, tennessine (117) has isotopes with half-lives of 14 to 80 milliseconds.[1] Their chemical properties are profoundly influenced by relativistic effects, where electrons near the nucleus move at speeds approaching the speed of light, altering electron orbitals and leading to unexpected behaviors, such as flerovium (114) potentially acting more like a metal than a noble gas.[3][4] Research on superheavy elements focuses on probing the "island of stability," a theoretical region around atomic numbers 114 to 126 and neutron numbers near 184, where certain isotopes might have significantly longer half-lives—potentially days or years—allowing for more detailed study of their chemistry and nuclear structure.[1][3] Ongoing experiments aim to synthesize elements beyond 118, such as element 119, using advanced accelerators to test these predictions and expand our understanding of nuclear physics at the limits of the periodic table.[3][5]

Definition and Classification

Definition

Superheavy elements, also referred to as transactinide elements, are defined as chemical elements with atomic numbers (Z) greater than or equal to 104.[6] This classification distinguishes them from transuranic elements, which encompass all elements with Z greater than 92 (uranium), as superheavy elements represent the heaviest subset synthesized in laboratories and are not found in nature.[7] The term "superheavy" emphasizes their extreme nuclear instability due to the large number of protons, leading to very short half-lives, ranging from microseconds to several hours for known isotopes.[8] These elements occupy positions in the extended periodic table following the actinide series (Z = 89–103), specifically in the 6d transition metal series for Z = 104–112 and the initial 7p series for Z = 113–118.[6] The 6d elements (104–112) align with groups 4 through 12, exhibiting properties analogous to lighter transition metals in those groups, while elements 113–118 transition into the p-block (groups 13–18).[7] Their placement reflects predicted electronic configurations influenced by relativistic effects, which become significant at high Z.[9] Prior to official naming, superheavy elements are designated using a systematic IUPAC nomenclature based on their atomic numbers, where digits are represented by Latin or Greek roots (e.g., un- for 1, bi- for 2, nil- for 0, pent- for 5), combined in order and suffixed with "-ium" to form the name, such as ununpentium for Z = 115.[10] The corresponding symbols consist of three letters starting with "U" followed by the first letters of the roots for the remaining digits (e.g., Uup for ununpentium).[11] Official names, approved by IUPAC after discovery verification, often honor scientists, institutions, or locations involved in their synthesis. The following table lists the confirmed superheavy elements from Z = 104 to 118, including their official names and symbols as recognized by IUPAC as of 2025:
Atomic Number (Z)NameSymbol
104RutherfordiumRf
105DubniumDb
106SeaborgiumSg
107BohriumBh
108HassiumHs
109MeitneriumMt
110DarmstadtiumDs
111RoentgeniumRg
112CoperniciumCn
113NihoniumNh
114FleroviumFl
115MoscoviumMc
116LivermoriumLv
117TennessineTs
118OganessonOg
[12]

Island of stability

The concept of the island of stability refers to a theoretical region in the chart of nuclides where certain isotopes of superheavy elements exhibit significantly enhanced nuclear stability due to closed shells, contrasting sharply with the rapid decay observed in currently synthesized superheavy isotopes. This idea was introduced by Glenn T. Seaborg in 1969, who predicted that shell closures around atomic numbers Z ≈ 114–126 and neutron numbers N ≈ 184 would lead to longer-lived superheavy nuclei, potentially extending the periodic table beyond previously expected limits.[13] In nuclear physics, magic numbers represent specific counts of protons or neutrons that fill complete nuclear shells, resulting in particularly stable configurations analogous to noble gas electron shells in atomic physics. For superheavy elements, theoretical models based on the nuclear shell model predict a major shell closure at N = 184 for neutrons, with possible proton closures near Z = 114 or Z = 120–126, creating a localized "island" of relative stability amid the broader trend of increasing instability as atomic mass rises due to heightened Coulomb repulsion and fission tendencies.[14] These shell effects provide binding energy that raises fission barriers and reduces alpha decay probabilities, countering the general decrease in half-lives for elements beyond uranium.[15] Theoretical calculations suggest that isotopes within this island could have half-lives ranging from seconds to minutes for those near the edges, potentially extending to years or even longer for doubly magic configurations like ^{298}114 (Z=114, N=184), far exceeding the microseconds typical of known superheavy isotopes such as ^{294}118.[16] Relativistic effects in superheavy atoms, arising from high nuclear charge accelerating inner electrons to speeds approaching the speed of light, contract and stabilize s and p_{1/2} orbitals while destabilizing d and f orbitals, which may indirectly influence overall atomic stability by altering chemical bonding and volatility in potential island isotopes.[17]

Historical Development

Early predictions

The concept of superheavy elements beyond uranium emerged in the early 20th century, primarily through extensions of the periodic table based on atomic shell models. In 1922, Niels Bohr proposed that the periodic system could extend to atomic number Z=118, envisioning it as a noble gas with an electron configuration analogous to radon (86 electrons in completed shells plus 32 more), though he expressed doubts about the stability of such heavy atoms due to relativistic effects on electron orbits.[18] This prediction relied on Bohr's atomic model, which emphasized shell closures for chemical periodicity, but lacked insight into nuclear stability limits. Earlier speculations, such as those by Victor Meyer in 1889, had suggested a finite number of elements around Z=100 based on periodic trends, while Edmund St. John Mills in 1884 estimated an atomic weight limit near 240 using empirical formulas, reflecting pre-nuclear physics views on table extension.[18] The development of the nuclear shell model in the late 1940s by Maria Goeppert Mayer and J. Hans D. Jensen provided a quantum framework for nuclear stability, predicting magic numbers of protons and neutrons (e.g., 82 and 126) that enhance binding energies. By the 1950s, extrapolations to heavier regions suggested potential closed shells at higher magic numbers, such as Z=114 and N=184, implying greater stability for superheavy nuclei than liquid-drop models forecasted. These ideas built on earlier atomic shell extensions but shifted focus to nuclear structure, setting the stage for 1960s predictions. In the mid-1960s, V. M. Strutinsky introduced the shell-correction method to account for quantum shell effects in nuclear masses and deformation energies, revealing how deformed shapes in heavy nuclei could stabilize against fission through enhanced shell closures. Strutinsky's 1967 calculations demonstrated that shell effects dominate over macroscopic liquid-drop instabilities in the superheavy region, predicting minima in potential energy surfaces near doubly magic configurations like ^{298}114, where fission barriers could exceed 10 MeV, potentially yielding half-lives of seconds to years.[19] Glenn T. Seaborg formalized the "island of stability" hypothesis in 1969, proposing that superheavy elements around Z=114–126 with N≈184 would form a relatively stable region, extending the actinide series into a new "superactinide" sequence (Z=121–153) with 5g and 6f electron fillings, thereby broadening the periodic table.[20] This built on nuclear shell predictions, suggesting these elements could exhibit enhanced lifetimes amid a "sea" of unstable isotopes, influencing subsequent synthesis efforts. Early estimates of atomic and chemical properties for superheavy elements in groups 4–12 anticipated relativistic influences on electron configurations, leading to contracted s-orbitals and expanded d/f-orbitals. For instance, in group 4 (eka-hafnium, Z=104), predictions indicated a preference for +4 oxidation states with properties akin to zirconium but with increased volatility due to weaker metal-ligand bonds from relativistic stabilization of 6s electrons.[21] Similar trends were forecasted for groups 5–12: group 6 (Z=106) expected to mirror molybdenum with stable +6 states but reduced acidity; group 8 (Z=108) predicted as hassium with osmium-like volatility and high melting points; and group 12 (Z=112) as a volatile, zinc-like metal with minimal +2 stability due to inert-pair effects amplified by relativity. These Dirac-Fock calculations by Fricke and Waber in 1970 highlighted deviations from lighter homologs, such as lower ionization potentials and altered covalency, establishing conceptual trends without exhaustive numerical data.[21]

Key discoveries

The discovery of superheavy elements began in the late 1960s with competing efforts by international teams. Element 104, rutherfordium, was first synthesized in 1969 at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) by bombarding californium-249 with carbon-12 and carbon-13 ions, producing isotopes with atomic masses around 257 and 258.[1][22] The Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Russia, had reported a similar synthesis in 1964 using neon-22 on plutonium-242, but credit was officially awarded to the LBNL team following IUPAC review in 1997.[23] Element 105, dubnium, followed in 1970 at LBNL through the reaction of californium-249 with nitrogen-15.[1] In the 1970s and 1980s, further breakthroughs extended the periodic table. Element 106, seaborgium, was produced in 1974 at LBNL by fusing californium-249 with oxygen-18.[24] The discovery of element 107, bohrium, occurred in 1981 at the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI) in Darmstadt, Germany, via the bombardment of bismuth-209 with chromium-54.[25] Element 108, hassium, was synthesized in 1984 at GSI using lead-208 and iron-58, marking a significant advancement in cold fusion techniques.[25] These syntheses relied on heavy-ion accelerators and were verified through alpha decay observations. The 2000s saw discoveries of elements 113 through 116, primarily at JINR and collaborating institutions. Element 113, nihonium, was first observed in 2004 at RIKEN in Japan by reacting bismuth-209 with zinc-70, with IUPAC confirmation in 2015.[26] Element 114, flerovium, was synthesized in 1998 at JINR using calcium-48 beams on plutonium-244, yielding isotopes like 289Fl.[27] Element 115, moscovium, emerged in 2003 from JINR-LLNL collaborations bombarding americium-243 with calcium-48.[28] Element 116, livermorium, was produced in 2000 at JINR via calcium-48 on curium-248.[27] Elements 117 and 118 completed the seventh row of the periodic table. Element 117, tennessine, was synthesized in 2010 by a JINR-LLNL-Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) team using berkelium-249 and calcium-48 at JINR's U-400 cyclotron. Element 118, oganesson, was first created in 2006 at JINR by fusing californium-249 with calcium-48, with independent confirmation in 2012.[29] These achievements were recognized by IUPAC in 2016.[26] Key experiments for elements 114–118 utilized calcium-48 beams at JINR's Dubna Gas-Filled Recoil Separator (DGFRS), which separated fusion products from beam particles for detection.[30] This approach, developed in the late 1990s, enabled the production of neutron-rich isotopes approaching the predicted island of stability.[28] IUPAC and IUPAP joint working groups confirmed these discoveries through rigorous review of experimental data, requiring independent replication and cross-verification of decay properties.[31] Naming controversies arose during the "transfermium wars" for elements 104–109 in the 1970s–1990s, involving disputes between American (LBNL) and Soviet/Russian (JINR) teams over credit and nomenclature. For element 108, GSI proposed hassium (after Hesse, Germany) in 1994, rejecting the American suggestion of hahnium; IUPAC resolved it in favor of hassium in 1997.[32] Element 114's name, flerovium, adopted in 2012, honored JINR's Flerov Laboratory without major dispute, though it echoed a rejected proposal for element 102.[33] Later namings for 113–118 proceeded smoothly under updated IUPAC guidelines.[26] Verification of these discoveries relied on observing alpha decay chains that terminated in known isotopes of lighter elements, providing genetic links for identification. For instance, oganesson-294 decayed through a chain ending in known polonium and lead isotopes, confirming its atomic number.[34] Similar chains, often 3–5 steps long, were essential for elements 114–118, with cross-checks at facilities like GSI ensuring reproducibility.[35]

Recent advances

In 2025, researchers at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research (GSI/FAIR) in Darmstadt, Germany, announced the discovery of seaborgium-257 (Sg-257), a new isotope of element 106 with 151 neutrons.[36] This isotope was produced by bombarding a tungsten-186 target with chromium-52 ions in the UNILAC linear accelerator, yielding 22 observed nuclei that decayed primarily via spontaneous fission with a half-life of 12.6 milliseconds. The discovery extends the known isotopic chain of seaborgium to 14 members, providing valuable data on neutron-rich nuclei near the predicted island of stability and enhancing understanding of shell effects in superheavy systems.[37] Advancements in synthesis techniques also marked 2024, particularly in the production of livermorium (element 116). At Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's 88-Inch Cyclotron, scientists successfully generated livermorium-288 by fusing titanium-50 beams with plutonium-242 targets, observing two decay chains over 22 days of irradiation.[5] This novel reaction, with a measured cross-section of approximately 0.3 picobarns, demonstrates the feasibility of using neutron-deficient projectiles like titanium-50 for superheavy fusion, potentially enabling attempts to synthesize elements 119 and 120 by targeting curium-248 or californium-249. The approach addresses limitations of traditional calcium-48 beams and highlights progress toward accessing more stable superheavy isotopes.[38] On the chemical front, a breakthrough in 2025 involved the first direct observation of molecules formed with nobelium (element 102), the heaviest element to date with identified compounds. Using the 88-Inch Cyclotron at Berkeley Lab, researchers produced nobelium ions via bombardment of a lead target with calcium-48 ions, then exposed them to trace gases of nitrogen and water vapor in a gas-filled separator.[39] Mass spectrometry detected cationic nobelium complexes with dinitrogen and water ligands, confirming chemical bonding on an atom-by-atom basis despite relativistic effects altering nobelium's reactivity to resemble lighter actinides more than expected. This technique, applicable to other superheavies like lawrencium and rutherfordium, promises to probe periodic trends in extreme atomic numbers and validate theoretical predictions for superheavy chemistry.[40] Efforts to discover elements 119 and 120 continued at major facilities, though without success as of late 2025. At RIKEN in Japan, upgraded superconducting linear accelerators increased beam intensities for titanium-50 reactions with berkelium-249, but extensive irradiation campaigns yielded no confirmed events, consistent with cross-sections below 0.1 picobarns.[41] Similarly, at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Russia, attempts using vanadium-51 on plutonium-244 and other combinations faced setbacks from low production rates and detection challenges, prompting further beam current enhancements.[42] These failed searches underscore the technical hurdles in reaching the next superheavy elements but have refined fusion models and target preparation methods for future trials. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) maintained its oversight of superheavy element nomenclature in 2025, with no new elements confirmed for naming but ongoing consultations on provisional systematic names like ununennium for element 119. This builds on the 2018 revision of discovery criteria, which streamlined verification for superheavies beyond element 118, ensuring rapid recognition once syntheses are replicated across laboratories.[43] Potential names for future elements will adhere to IUPAC guidelines honoring scientists or geographic origins, as seen with prior additions like oganesson.[26]

Synthesis Methods

Nuclear fusion techniques

The synthesis of superheavy elements (SHE) primarily relies on nuclear fusion reactions, where a lighter projectile nucleus is accelerated to fuse with a heavy target nucleus, forming a compound nucleus that subsequently evaporates neutrons to reach a more stable configuration.[44] Two main approaches dominate: cold fusion and hot fusion, distinguished by the choice of reaction partners and the resulting excitation energy of the compound nucleus. Cold fusion reactions, developed at GSI in Darmstadt, involve doubly magic lead or bismuth targets (Z ≈ 82) bombarded by medium-mass projectiles such as zinc or calcium isotopes (Z = 30–20), leading to low excitation energies (10–15 MeV) and typically the evaporation of 1–2 neutrons. This method was instrumental in synthesizing elements from Z=106 (seaborgium) to Z=112 (copernicium), with representative reactions like ^{70}\mathrm{Zn} + ^{208}\mathrm{Pb} \to ^{277}\mathrm{Cn} + n, where cross-sections peak at around 1 picobarn (pb).[44] In contrast, hot fusion reactions, pioneered at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, employ neutron-rich actinide targets (Z = 90–98) such as plutonium or americium, paired with the neutron-rich projectile ^{48}\mathrm{Ca} (Z=20), resulting in higher excitation energies (30–40 MeV) and the evaporation of 3–5 neutrons to form more neutron-rich isotopes closer to the predicted island of stability. A key example is the production of flerovium (Z=114) via ^{48}\mathrm{Ca} + ^{244}\mathrm{Pu} \to ^{292}114^* \to ^{288}114 + 4n, which yielded the first confirmed decay chain in 1998 with a cross-section of approximately 1 pb at the optimal energy. Similarly, moscovium (Z=115) was synthesized in ^{48}\mathrm{Ca} + ^{243}\mathrm{Am} \to ^{291}115^* \to ^{288}115 + 3n, with measured cross-sections on the order of 0.1–1 pb, highlighting the role of neutron evaporation in stabilizing the residue against fission. These reactions exploit beam-target geometries where the projectile beam is directed onto a thin, rotating target foil to maximize interaction rates while minimizing degradation.[45] The probability of fusion is quantified through excitation functions, which map the evaporation residue cross-section as a function of the center-of-mass beam energy, revealing a narrow peak where the fusion barrier is surmounted with minimal quasifission.[46] For SHE production, these functions typically show maximum yields at energies 5–10% above the Coulomb barrier (around 200–250 MeV for actinide targets), with fusion probabilities dropping sharply due to competition from quasifission, where the dinuclear system breaks apart before full equilibration.[46] Deformation of the colliding nuclei plays a crucial role in enhancing cross-sections; prolate deformations in actinide targets can lower the effective barrier for tip-on orientations, increasing fusion hindrance for side-on collisions but overall favoring neutron-rich paths when aligned properly.[47] Theoretical models incorporating these deformations predict up to a factor of 2–5 improvement in cross-sections for optimally oriented deformed nuclei in hot fusion scenarios.[47]

Accelerators and facilities

The synthesis of superheavy elements requires accelerators capable of producing intense beams of heavy ions, such as calcium-48 or titanium-50, with energies typically in the range of 5-8 MeV per nucleon to overcome the Coulomb barrier in fusion reactions with actinide targets.[45] Two primary types of accelerators are employed: cyclotrons, which provide high beam intensities through continuous acceleration in a magnetic field, and linear accelerators (linacs), which offer precise control over beam energy and are suited for injecting heavy ions into synchrotrons for further acceleration.[48] Cyclotrons, like those at major facilities, excel in delivering stable, high-current beams essential for the low cross-sections of superheavy element production, often on the order of picobarns.[49] The Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Russia, hosts the Superheavy Element Factory (SHE Factory), a dedicated cyclotron complex centered on the DC-280 cyclotron, which accelerates 48Ca beams to intensities up to 6 × 10^{13} ions per second at energies of 5-8 A·MeV, enabling the production of elements up to oganesson (Z=118). This facility, operational since 2019, includes the upgraded U-400 cyclotron for initial acceleration and supports experiments with beam powers reaching approximately 10 pμA, a significant enhancement over prior setups that has increased synthesis rates by orders of magnitude. It has enabled the discovery of new isotopes, such as livermorium-288, livermorium-289, and copernicium-280, as of July 2025.[50][51][52] At GSI Helmholtz Centre in Darmstadt, Germany, the UNILAC linear accelerator provides high-intensity heavy-ion beams, such as titanium-50 at energies optimized for fusion, and serves as the injector for the Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research (FAIR), which is expected to deliver even higher luminosities for superheavy element studies starting in 2027.[53][54] Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's 88-Inch Cyclotron in the United States accelerates a range of heavy ions, including titanium-50 for recent element 116 production, with beam energies up to several MeV per nucleon and intensities suitable for atom-at-a-time experiments.[5] Japan's RIKEN Nishina Center employs the RIKEN Gas-filled Recoil Ion Separator (RIKEN GAS or GARIS) coupled to its Radioactive Isotope Beam Factory (RIBF) cyclotrons, which generate intense heavy-ion beams for synthesizing and separating superheavy residues, including efforts toward elements beyond 118.[55] Ongoing attempts to synthesize element 119 (ununennium) as of November 2025 include reactions such as ^{50}\mathrm{Ti} + ^{249}\mathrm{Bk} at facilities like LBNL, GSI, and JINR, as well as heavier projectile approaches at RIKEN, though no confirmed atoms have been produced yet. Similar efforts target element 120 using projectiles like ^{54}\mathrm{Cr} + ^{249}\mathrm{Cf}. These build on the 2024 success with titanium-50 for livermorium (element 116), aiming to access more neutron-rich isotopes.[56][5][57] Target preparation for these experiments involves fabricating thin actinide foils, typically 0.5-1 mg/cm² thick, from isotopes like plutonium-244, americium-243, or curium-248, deposited on titanium backings via molecular plating to withstand intense beam bombardment without significant degradation.[58] These foils are irradiated in rotating wheel assemblies to distribute heat and ensure uniform exposure.[59] Fusion products, which recoil from the target with velocities around 5-10% of the speed of light, are then transported via gas-jet systems—where helium or argon gas carries the ions through capillaries to detectors—achieving separation efficiencies over 90% while minimizing contamination from scattered beam particles.[60] International collaborations are crucial for superheavy element research, pooling expertise in beam production, target fabrication, and detection; for instance, the confirmed synthesis of element 118 (oganesson) resulted from joint efforts between JINR's SHE Factory and U.S. laboratories, including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which supplied enriched actinide targets like californium-249.[27] Similar partnerships, such as those between GSI/FAIR and international teams for mass measurements, and RIKEN's collaborations with global institutions for separator upgrades, have accelerated progress by sharing rare isotopes and advanced instrumentation.[61]

Properties

Nuclear properties

Superheavy elements (SHEs), defined as those with atomic numbers Z ≥ 104, exhibit nuclear properties dominated by strong Coulomb repulsion between protons, leading to inherent instability. Their nuclei are characterized by complex shell structures, where magic numbers—such as proton numbers Z = 114 or 120 and neutron numbers N = 184—create shell closures that enhance binding energy and stability through quantum shell effects. These closures raise fission barriers, potentially increasing half-lives by up to 15 orders of magnitude compared to liquid-drop model predictions without shell corrections, as observed in isotopes near N = 152 for elements like rutherfordium (Z = 104).[62][63] The half-lives of known SHE isotopes typically range from microseconds to hours, influenced heavily by proximity to shell closures; for instance, isotopes near Z = 114 and N = 184 show extended α-decay half-lives due to increased shell gaps of approximately 3 MeV. Fission barriers in these nuclei are generally low, around 5–8 MeV for heavier SHEs, but shell effects can elevate them, promoting relative stability against spontaneous fission (SF) in lighter isotopes. In contrast, without strong shell stabilization, barriers drop below 5 MeV, favoring rapid decay.[64][62] Alpha decay is a primary mode for SHEs, proceeding through chains that reveal energy spectra and Q-values indicative of nuclear structure. Q-values for α-decay typically range from 10–12 MeV, with half-lives calculated via models like the Viola-Seaborg formula, showing sensitivity to shell effects; for example, ^{294}Og (Z = 118) undergoes α-decay to ^{290}Lv (Z = 116) with a predicted Q-value around 11.5 MeV and a half-life on the order of 0.7 ms, continuing a chain influenced by deformed shells at N ≈ 172. These chains provide insights into single-particle levels and stability, with longer sequences near magic numbers.[65][63] In heavier SHE isotopes (Z > 116), spontaneous fission dominates over α-decay, with SF half-lives as short as microseconds due to lowered barriers from high proton numbers; branching ratios favor SF when T_{SF}^{1/2} / T_α^{1/2} < 1. Neutron emission accompanies SF in some cases, with average yields of 2–4 neutrons per event, contributing to post-fission fragments and aiding detection, though less common than in lighter actinides.[64][66] Isotope production yields for SHEs are quantified by evaporation residue cross-sections, which represent the probability of forming and surviving the compound nucleus after neutron evaporation. The cross-section is given by
σER=σfus×Psurvival, \sigma_{ER} = \sigma_{fus} \times P_{survival},
where $ \sigma_{fus} $ is the fusion cross-section and $ P_{survival} $ is the survival probability against fission during de-excitation. Typical values for known SHEs range from picobarns (pb) for lighter fusions to femtobarns (fb) for Z ≈ 118, decreasing rapidly with Z due to lower survival probabilities near 10^{-5}–10^{-7}.[67]

Chemical properties

Superheavy elements exhibit chemical behaviors significantly influenced by relativistic effects arising from the high velocities of inner electrons near the speed of light, which become prominent for atomic numbers Z > 80. These effects cause a radial contraction and stabilization of s and p_{1/2} orbitals due to increased relativistic mass, while d and f orbitals expand, leading to altered electron configurations and bonding trends compared to lighter homologs.[9][68] For instance, in group 6, relativistic destabilization of the 7s orbital enhances the volatility of seaborgium compounds, such as its hexacarbonyl Sg(CO)_6, making it more gaseous than expected from non-relativistic trends.[69] Experimental investigations of superheavy element chemistry are constrained by production rates of only a few atoms per experiment, necessitating rapid, on-line techniques. For hassium (element 108), gas-phase thermochromatography was used to study the formation and adsorption of volatile HsO_4 molecules, revealing deposition temperatures consistent with group 8 tetroxide behavior, albeit with relativistic modifications reducing stability relative to osmium. Aqueous-phase studies of rutherfordium (element 104) employed solvent extraction with tributylphosphate in HCl media, demonstrating that Rf^{4+} ions hydrolyze similarly to hafnium but extract more readily than zirconium, indicating group 4 homology with relativistic influences on ion size and charge density.[70] Theoretical predictions suggest that superheavy elements largely follow periodic trends as analogs to lighter homologs, but with deviations due to relativistic orbital shifts. Flerovium (element 114), for example, is anticipated and experimentally confirmed to be more inert and volatile than lead, exhibiting weak metallic bonding and adsorption on gold surfaces only under specific conditions, positioning it as the least reactive group 14 element.[71] The primary challenges in studying these elements stem from their ultrashort half-lives, often milliseconds to seconds, which restrict experiments to single atoms and demand automated, continuous separation and detection systems. On-line techniques, such as gas-filled recoil separators, enabled the first chemical studies of copernicium (element 112) by rapidly isolating reaction products for volatility assessments, confirming its mercury-like behavior with enhanced nobility from relativistic 7s contraction.

Decay and Detection

Decay processes

Superheavy elements primarily undergo radioactive decay through alpha emission, which is the dominant mode due to the high Coulomb barrier and nuclear structure favoring the ejection of a helium-4 nucleus. These alpha particles typically carry energies between 9 and 11 MeV, reflecting the Q-values of the transitions in neutron-deficient isotopes.[34] Following initial alpha decays, many chains terminate via spontaneous fission (SF), particularly in even-Z, even-N nuclei where the barrier to fission is lower, allowing symmetric or asymmetric splitting into lighter fragments without external excitation. Electron capture, involving the capture of an inner-shell electron by a proton to form a neutron, occurs rarely in superheavy nuclei owing to the high atomic numbers and relativistic effects that suppress weak interaction rates compared to alpha decay or SF.[72] The choice of decay path is significantly influenced by odd-even nucleon effects, stemming from pairing interactions in the nuclear shell model. Nuclei with an odd number of protons or neutrons experience a hindrance to spontaneous fission because the unpaired nucleon raises the fission barrier by disrupting the even-even configuration's symmetry, leading to longer SF half-lives by factors of 10 to 100 compared to neighboring even-even isotopes.[73] Alpha decay half-lives show less pronounced staggering, as the process is less sensitive to single-particle effects, though odd-A nuclei often exhibit slightly extended lifetimes due to reduced overlap in the alpha-nucleus potential.[74] These effects guide the observed branching in decay chains, with even-even superheavies favoring quicker SF termination while odd-mass ones prolong alpha sequences. An illustrative example is the decay chain of tennessine-294 (Z=117, A=294), the most stable known isotope of tennessine, observed in fusion-evaporation reactions at facilities like the Dubna Gas-Filled Recoil Separator. This chain proceeds through successive alpha decays until spontaneous fission intervenes, reaching established actinide isotopes. The sequence, based on experimental data from multiple events (over 10 atoms observed across experiments as of 2019), is summarized below, including measured alpha energies, half-lives, and notes on branching (using adopted values from recent compilations):
NuclideDecay ModeAlpha Energy (MeV)Half-LifeNotes/Branching
^{294}Tsα10.84 ± 0.0851^{+38}_{-16} ms100% α; no SF observed[75]
^{290}Mcα10.69 ± 0.070.65 ± 0.10 s100% α; consistent across chains[76]
^{286}Nhα10.14 ± 0.049.5^{+2.4}_{-1.1} s100% α; long-lived relative to parents[76]
^{282}Dbα9.88 ± 0.10220 ± 60 ms100% α; branches to known dubnium isotopes
^{278}RfSF-~10 ms (inferred)Terminates chain; ~20-30% of Rf isotopes SF here, others α to lower Z
This chain links to well-characterized isotopes near mendelevium (Z=101) via potential further decays if SF is avoided, though observed events end at rutherfordium due to fission branching.[34] Branching ratios arise from competing SF at intermediate steps; for instance, approximately 70% of chains from tennessine isotopes reach dubnium before fission, while shorter paths occur via early SF in moscovium or nihonium with ratios around 10-20%.[77] Half-life measurements for superheavy elements carry substantial uncertainties, often spanning orders of magnitude, because production yields are extremely low—typically 1-10 atoms per experiment—limiting statistics to single-event analyses or small ensembles. For example, the half-life of tennessine-294 is reported as 51^{+38}_{-16} ms, reflecting Poisson statistics and potential systematic errors in timing correlated decays.[75] Similar uncertainties affect downstream nuclides, where branching and low counts amplify errors in partial half-lives, emphasizing the need for repeated syntheses to refine values.[78]

Detection methods

Superheavy nuclei, produced in fusion-evaporation reactions at rates as low as a few atoms per month, require specialized detection techniques to isolate and identify them from the intense primary beam and scattered particles.[79] Separator systems play a crucial role in this process by exploiting the kinematic differences between fusion products and beam particles to transport superheavy recoils to a detection station. Gas-filled recoil separators, such as TASCA at GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research, use a low-pressure gas (typically helium or argon) to equilibrate the charge states of heavy ions, allowing magnetic and electric fields to guide them along a trajectory optimized for neutron-rich isotopes with atomic numbers Z around 112–120.[80] These separators achieve transmission efficiencies of up to 50% for superheavy elements by minimizing energy loss and angular dispersion during separation.[81] Velocity filters like SHIP (Separator for Heavy Ion Reaction Products), also at GSI, provide an alternative approach by selecting ions with the velocity matching complete fusion products, typically around 5–7% of the beam velocity, while deflecting faster beam particles and slower transfer products.[79] In operation since 1976, SHIP has been instrumental in the discovery of elements 107–112, implanting recoiling superheavy ions into a stopping detector array over distances of about 12 meters.[82] Both types of separators deposit the isolated nuclei into position-sensitive detectors, enabling subsequent observation of their radioactive decays. Detection of decay events relies on high-resolution silicon strip detectors, often arranged in box-like geometries to surround the implantation site and capture alpha particles and spontaneous fission (SF) fragments with near-100% efficiency.[83] Double-sided silicon strip detectors (DSSDs), such as those in the SHREC array, provide spatial resolution down to 100 μm, allowing precise tracking of implantation positions and correlated decay chains that confirm the identity of the parent nucleus through sequential alpha emissions or SF.[83] Time-correlated measurements, typically with timestamps accurate to nanoseconds, link these events across multiple generations in the decay chain, distinguishing true superheavy signals from random backgrounds.[84] To combat the extremely low event rates and high background from cosmic rays or beam-induced activity, digital signal processing (DSP) techniques are employed in modern data acquisition systems. These systems use field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) for real-time waveform analysis, pile-up rejection, and energy calibration, achieving background suppression factors of over 10^4 in low-background environments like underground labs.[85] DSP enables the detection of short-lived isotopes with half-lives below 1 μs, critical for superheavy elements beyond Z=118, by processing signals directly from the detector preamplifiers without analog shaping delays.[86] Recent advancements include electrostatic ion traps for studying the chemical properties of superheavy anions. In 2025, CERN's ISOLDE facility introduced a multi-reflection time-of-flight (MR-ToF) electrostatic trap that "recycles" anions by reflecting them thousands of times between electrostatic mirrors, enhancing sensitivity for electron affinity measurements in heavy elements like chlorine analogs extended to superheavies. This setup confines ions in a field-free drift region for laser spectroscopy, providing unprecedented precision for single-atom studies of superheavy anions.[87] As of 2025, upgrades to facilities like the SHE Factory at JINR enable higher production rates for superheavies beyond Z=118, improving detection statistics.[88] Confirmation of new superheavy isotopes demands rigorous yield calculations and statistical analysis, as production cross-sections can be as low as 1 picobarn, yielding only 1–10 events after extended irradiation.[89] Statistical significance is established by cross-correlating observed decay chains with theoretical predictions from fusion models, requiring at least two independent events or consistent branching ratios to rule out chance correlations at the 5σ level.[90] These methods ensure robust identification, as demonstrated in the 2023 discovery of a new uranium isotope via precise mass measurements of decay products.[90]

Theoretical and Future Aspects

Extensions beyond current elements

Elements 119 through 126 are predicted to initiate the eighth period of the periodic table, filling the 8s and 8p orbitals before transitioning into a hypothetical 5g series, analogous to the f-block in actinides.[91] These superheavy elements, often referred to as eka-actinides in broader theoretical contexts due to their position following the known actinides, exhibit configurations starting with [Og] 8s¹ for element 119 (eka-francium) and progressing to include 5g electrons by elements 125 and 126.[92] Superrelativistic effects, arising from the high nuclear charge (Z > 118), significantly destabilize inner s and p orbitals while stabilizing d and f orbitals, leading to deviations from periodic trends in ionization potentials, electron affinities, and bonding behaviors.[93] For instance, element 119 is expected to favor a +1 oxidation state with ionic bonding akin to alkali metals, but relativistic contractions may enhance its reactivity compared to lighter homologues.[93] Theoretical models extend the island of stability beyond the current elements, predicting enhanced nuclear stability for isotopes around Z = 120–126 and N = 184–228, where shell closures at magic numbers such as Z = 120, 126 and N = 184, 198, 228 could yield half-lives exceeding microseconds or even seconds.[91] These regions may support metallic states with potential pseudosymmetric deformations, though exotic phases like bubble-like structures or superdeformed configurations remain speculative without direct observation.[91] Relativistic continuum Hartree-Bogoliubov theory, incorporating interactions like NL3 and PK1, identifies these closures by analyzing binding energies and deformation energies, suggesting a broader "continent" of relative stability for neutron-rich isotopes.[91] Fission barriers in this extended region are modeled using the Skyrme-Hartree-Fock approach, which predicts barriers increasing for Z > 110 and N > 180, potentially bolstering stability against spontaneous fission compared to lighter superheavies.[94] For Z = 108–120 and N = 166–182, these calculations yield upper bounds on static barriers of several MeV, with axial deformations indicating no persistent fission isomers but possible superdeformed minima.[94] Quantum electrodynamics (QED) corrections become crucial for orbital descriptions, incorporating vacuum polarization and self-energy effects via the model Lamb-shift operator to refine electron densities and radii in high-Z atoms.[95] In superheavies, these corrections, evaluated within the multi-configuration Dirac-Fock framework including Breit interactions, adjust ionization potentials by up to 0.1–1 eV, influencing chemical trends like the stabilization of high oxidation states.[95] Hypothetical molecules involving elements 119–126 highlight exotic chemistry driven by relativistic effects. For example, element 125 is predicted to form E125F₆ in a 5g¹ configuration, analogous to UF₆ but with compact, non-bonding 5g orbitals limiting covalency.[92] Element 126 may yield E126F₆ as 5g², potentially exhibiting +6 oxidation states stabilized by relativistic contraction, though QED-modified Dirac-Fock calculations suggest volatility and weak intermolecular interactions due to altered electron affinities.[92] These compounds underscore the shift toward more ionic or polarized bonding in superheavies, with theoretical extended average level Dirac-Fock methods forecasting deviations from lanthanide/actinide patterns in complex formation.[92]

Challenges and prospects

One of the primary challenges in superheavy element (SHE) research is the extremely low production rates, where cross-sections for fusion reactions typically range from picobarns to femt obarns, resulting in the synthesis of only a few atoms per experiment despite months of beam delivery.[96] For instance, the production of oganesson (element 118) has yielded just five confirmed atoms as of 2025, requiring the irradiation of targets with over 10^19 calcium ions to achieve such sparse events.[3] These minuscule yields necessitate prolonged experimental campaigns, often lasting weeks to months, to gather sufficient data for identification and characterization.[8] Compounding this scarcity is the brevity of half-lives for known SHE isotopes, which decay in milliseconds or less, severely limiting opportunities for detailed nuclear and chemical studies.[96] Oganesson-294, the most stable isotope of element 118, has a half-life of approximately 0.7 milliseconds, decaying via alpha emission and precluding any macroscopic sample formation or routine spectroscopic analysis.[97] Such transience demands ultra-sensitive detection systems and real-time instrumentation, further escalating technical demands. Additionally, the high costs associated with accelerator facilities pose a significant barrier; constructing and operating specialized infrastructure, such as the Superheavy Element Factory at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, exceeds $60 million for key components alone, while broader projects like the Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research (FAIR) at GSI Helmholtz Centre involve investments on the order of billions of euros.[98] Looking ahead, prospects for advancing SHE synthesis include facility upgrades that promise enhanced beam intensities and precision. Recent developments, such as the 2024 demonstration of producing livermorium (element 116) isotopes using a titanium-50 beam at Berkeley Lab's 88-Inch Cyclotron and the June 2025 discovery of a new seaborgium isotope at GSI/FAIR, highlight progress toward neutron-richer isotopes that could access the island of stability.[5][99] The FAIR accelerator complex, aiming for first experiments in 2027, will enable searches for element 119 using reactions like titanium-50 on berkelium-249, potentially increasing production rates by orders of magnitude through higher luminosity. Ongoing international efforts, including at Japan's RIKEN facility, are actively attempting to synthesize element 119 as of 2025. Beyond fusion-evaporation, multi-nucleon transfer reactions offer a pathway to neutron-richer isotopes, which may exhibit greater stability near predicted shell closures; dynamical models indicate these processes could populate heavy nuclei with neutron numbers around N=184 more efficiently than traditional hot fusion.[100][56] Addressing these challenges requires interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly in advanced computing for reaction dynamics predictions, where statistical models and machine learning optimize beam energies and target choices to maximize yields.[101] International funding is crucial for sustaining such efforts, as exemplified by the ELEMENTS research cluster, which secured €16 million from the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education to support SHE chemistry and nuclear structure studies across European institutions.[102] The broader impacts of SHE research extend to fundamental physics and astrophysics, providing insights into rapid neutron-capture (r-process) nucleosynthesis, where superheavy fission could recycle material and influence observed abundances of heavy elements in neutron star mergers.[8] In quantum electrodynamics (QED), the extreme nuclear charges of SHEs amplify relativistic effects, testing QED predictions for atomic binding energies and electron configurations in regimes unattainable elsewhere.[17] Ultimately, these investigations aim to complete the seventh row of the periodic table and probe the limits of nuclear stability, potentially revealing an "island of stability" with longer-lived isotopes.[96]

References

  1. DOE Explains...Superheavy Elements - Department of Energy
  2. Superheavy Element Discovery | Glenn T. Seaborg Institute
  3. Superheavy Elements Are Breaking the Periodic Table
  4. The Chemistry of Superheavy Elements - ChemistryViews
  5. A New Way to Make Element 116 Opens the Door to Heavier Atoms
  6. Superheavy Element - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
  7. Transactinide Element | Encyclopedia MDPI
  8. Explainer: superheavy elements | News - Chemistry World
  9. Relativistic effects on the electronic structure of the heaviest ...
  10. Element names >100 - IUPAC nomenclature
  11. Naming of elements of atomic numbers greater than 100
  12. [PDF] IUPAC Periodic Table of the Elements
  13. the synthetic elements: iv - jstor
  14. Magic numbers in superheavy elements - ScienceDirect.com
  15. [PDF] The Search for Superheavy Elements - arXiv
  16. Nuclei in the "Island of Stability" of Superheavy Elements
  17. Relativistic and quantum electrodynamic effects in superheavy ...
  18. [PDF] A Note on the Prehistory of Superheavy Elements - arXiv
  19. Strutinsky, V. M. (1967). Shell Effects in Nuclear Masses ... - Scirp.org.
  20. Prospects for further considerable extension of the periodic table
  21. Predicted properties of the super heavy elements. I. Elements 113 ...
  22. Rutherfordium - Los Alamos National Laboratory
  23. Rutherfordium - Element information, properties and uses
  24. 50 years ago, the quest for superheavy elements was just getting ...
  25. IYPT 2019 Elements 108 & 109: Hassium and Meitnerium
  26. IUPAC is naming the four new elements nihonium, moscovium ...
  27. Discovery of the new chemical elements with numbers 113, 115 ...
  28. Lawrence Livermore credited with discovery of elements 115, 117 ...
  29. Oganesson - Element information, properties and uses
  30. Superheavy Element Factory: overview of obtained results
  31. [PDF] On the discovery of new elements (IUPAC/IUPAP Provisional Report)
  32. Rules for element discovery get superheavy revamp - Chemistry World
  33. Livermorium and flerovium: New names for heavy elements
  34. Synthesis of a New Element with Atomic Number | Phys. Rev. Lett.
  35. [PDF] Discovery of the New Element Z=117 and Confirmation of 115
  36. https://www.gsi.de/en/start/news/details?tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=6054&cHash=472e09dd30c6d0cf2bc3398114e86b2f
  37. Expanding the border of superheavy nuclei—new seaborgium ...
  38. New Progress Toward the Discovery of New Elements
  39. New Technique Sheds Light on Chemistry at the Bottom of the ...
  40. Nobelium becomes heaviest element with identified compounds
  41. Facility upgrade for superheavy-element research at RIKEN
  42. Possibility of Discovering the Super-Heavy Elements Z=119 and 120
  43. Rules for element discovery get superheavy revamp
  44. The discovery of the heaviest elements | Rev. Mod. Phys.
  45. Superheavy nuclei from 48Ca-induced reactions - ScienceDirect.com
  46. Analysis of the fusion mechanism in the synthesis of superheavy ...
  47. [1803.02036] Hot fusion reactions with deformed nuclei for synthesis ...
  48. New Elements - GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung
  49. [PDF] SHE Factory: Cyclotron Facility for Super Heavy Elements Research
  50. [PDF] Superheavy elements at SHE Factory - JINR (Indico)
  51. [PDF] Status and perspectives of the Dubna superheavy element factory
  52. Super Heavy Elements - GSI
  53. Superheavy Element Research Group| RIKEN Nishina Center
  54. (PDF) Preparation of actinide targets for the synthesis of the heaviest ...
  55. Actinide targets for the synthesis of superheavy nuclei - OSTI
  56. Gas phase chemical studies of superheavy elements using the ...
  57. Direct high-precision mass spectrometry of superheavy elements ...
  58. [PDF] Direct mapping of nuclear shell effects in the heaviest elements - arXiv
  59. [PDF] Superheavy Nuclei in the Relativistic Mean Field Theory - arXiv
  60. [PDF] Superheavy Magic Nuclei: Ground-State Properties, Bubble ... - arXiv
  61. Alpha decay and structural properties of even-even superheavy nuclei
  62. Spontaneous fission half-lives of actinides and superheavy elements
  63. [PDF] arXiv:1203.4864v1 [nucl-th] 22 Mar 2012
  64. Relativistic effects in chemistry | Theoretical and Experimental ...
  65. electronic Structure and Properties of the Group 4, 5, and 6 Highest ...
  66. Chromatographic studies of Rf (element 104) with tributylphosphate ...
  67. On the adsorption and reactivity of element 114, flerovium - PMC - NIH
  68. Self-consistent calculations of electron-capture decays in Z=118 ...
  69. Fission-stability of high-K states in superheavy nuclei
  70. [1208.1215] Spontaneous fission modes and lifetimes of super ...
  71. Overview of decay chains associated with isotopes of tennessine ...
  72. ensuremath{\alpha} decay half-lives of new superheavy elements
  73. SHIP - GSI
  74. TASCA | Düllmann Group
  75. The TransActinide Separator and Chemistry Apparatus (TASCA) at ...
  76. (PDF) Superheavy element research at the velocity filter SHIP
  77. Source characterization of a detector for heavy and superheavy nuclei
  78. Fine Structure in Proton Emission from Discovered with Digital ...
  79. Development of digital electronics for the search of SHE nuclei using ...
  80. Rare isotope discoveries with digital electronics - ScienceDirect
  81. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64581-x
  82. Heavy and superheavy elements: next generation experiments ...
  83. Discovery of New Isotope and Systematic High-Precision Atomic ...
  84. Magic numbers for superheavy nuclei in relativistic continuum Hartree-Bogoliubov theory
  85. [PDF] A suggested Periodic Table up to Z ≤ 172 , based on Dirac-Fock calcu
  86. Relativistic calculations of the chemical properties of the superheavy ...
  87. Systematics of Fission Barriers in Superheavy Elements - arXiv
  88. QED and relativistic corrections in superheavy elements
  89. Colloquium: Superheavy elements: Oganesson and beyond
  90. [PDF] The quest for superheavy elements and the limit of the periodic table
  91. Oganesson - American Chemical Society
  92. A storied Russian lab is trying to push the periodic table past its ...
  93. Approaching the neutron-rich heavy and superheavy nuclei by ...
  94. Predictions for the synthesis of the superheavy element | Phys. Rev. C
  95. Funding & Partners | ELEMENTS
User Avatar
No comments yet.