Hubbry Logo
Systematic element nameSystematic element nameMain
Open search
Systematic element name
Community hub
Systematic element name
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Systematic element name
Systematic element name
Systematic element name
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on the
Periodic table
Periodic table forms
Periodic table history
Sets of elements
By periodic table structure
By metallic classification
By other characteristics
Elements
List of chemical elements
Properties of elements
Data pages for elements

A systematic element name is the temporary name assigned to an unknown or recently synthesized chemical element. A systematic symbol is also derived from this name.

In chemistry, a transuranic element receives a permanent name and symbol only after its synthesis has been confirmed. In some cases, such as the Transfermium Wars, controversies over the formal name and symbol have been protracted and highly political. In order to discuss such elements without ambiguity, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) uses a set of rules, adopted in 1978, to assign a temporary systematic name and symbol to each such element. This approach to naming originated in the successful development of regular rules for the naming of organic compounds.

IUPAC rules

[edit]

The temporary names derive systematically from the element's atomic number, and apply only to 101 ≤ Z ≤ 999.[1] Each digit is translated into a "numerical root" according to the table. The roots are concatenated, and the name is completed by the suffix -ium. Some of the roots are Latin and others are Greek, to avoid two digits starting with the same letter (for example, the Greek-derived pent is used instead of the Latin-derived quint to avoid confusion with quad for 4). There are two elision rules designed to prevent odd-looking names.

Traditionally the suffix -ium was used only for metals (or at least elements that were expected to be metallic), and other elements used different suffixes: halogens used -ine and noble gases used -on instead. However, the systematic names use -ium for all elements regardless of group. Thus, elements 117 and 118 were ununseptium and ununoctium, not ununseptine and ununocton.[2] This does not apply to the trivial names these elements receive once confirmed; thus, elements 117 and 118 are now tennessine and oganesson, respectively. For these trivial names, all elements receive the suffix -ium except those in group 17, which receive -ine (like the halogens), and those in group 18, which receive -on (like the noble gases).[2] (That being said, tennessine and oganesson are expected to behave quite differently from their lighter congeners.)

The systematic symbol is formed by taking the first letter of each root, converting the first to uppercase. This results in three-letter symbols instead of the one- or two-letter symbols used for named elements. The rationale is that any scheme producing two-letter symbols will have to deviate from full systematicity to avoid collisions with the symbols of the permanently named elements.

The Recommendations for the Naming of Elements of Atomic Numbers Greater than 100 can be found here.

Digit Root Etymology Symbol Pronunciation Example
0 nil Latin nihil ("zero") n /nɪl/ unbinilium
1 un Latin unus ("one") u /uːn/ unbiunium
2 bi Latin bis ("twice") b /baɪ/ unbibium
3 tri Latin tres ("three")
Greek tria ("three")		 t /traɪ/ unbitrium
4 quad Latin quattuor ("four") q /kwɒd/ unbiquadium
5 pent Greek pente ("five") p /pɛnt/ unbipentium
6 hex Greek hex ("six") h /hɛks/ unbihexium
7 sept Latin septem ("seven") s /sɛpt/ unbiseptium
8 oct Latin octo ("eight")
Greek okto ("eight")		 o /ɒkt/ unbioctium
9 en(n) Greek ennea ("nine") e /ɛn/ unbiennium
Suffix -(i)um Latin -um (neuter singular) none /-iəm/
  • If bi or tri is followed by the ending -ium (i.e. the last digit is 2 or 3), the result is -bium or -trium, not -biium or -triium.
Example 1: element 122: unbibium (Ubb)
Example 2: element 123: unbitrium (Ubt)
  • If enn is followed by nil (i.e. the sequence -90- occurs), the result is -ennil-, not -ennnil-.
Example 3: element 190: unennilium (Uen)

As of 2019, all 118 discovered elements have received individual permanent names and symbols.[3] Therefore, systematic names and symbols are now used only for the undiscovered elements beyond element 118, oganesson. When such an element is discovered, it will keep its systematic name and symbol until its discovery meets the criteria of and is accepted by the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party, upon which the discoverers are invited to propose a permanent name and symbol. Once this name and symbol is proposed, there is still a comment period before they become official and replace the systematic name and symbol.

At the time the systematic names were recommended (1978), names had already been officially given to all elements up to atomic number 103, lawrencium. While systematic names were given for elements 101 (mendelevium), 102 (nobelium), and 103 (lawrencium), these were only as "minor alternatives to the trivial names already approved by IUPAC".[1] The following elements for some time only had systematic names as approved names, until their final replacement with trivial names after their discoveries were accepted.

Z Systematic Formal Year
Symbol Name Symbol Name Undisputed synthesis first published Named
104 Unq Unnilquadium Rf Rutherfordium 1969 1997
105 Unp Unnilpentium Db Dubnium 1970 1997
106 Unh Unnilhexium Sg Seaborgium 1974 1997
107 Uns Unnilseptium Bh Bohrium 1981 1997
108 Uno Unniloctium Hs Hassium 1984 1997
109 Une Unnilennium Mt Meitnerium 1982 1997
110 Uun Ununnilium Ds Darmstadtium 1995 2003
111 Uuu Unununium Rg Roentgenium 1995 2004
112 Uub Ununbium Cn Copernicium 1996 2010
113 Uut Ununtrium Nh Nihonium 2004 2016
114 Uuq Ununquadium Fl Flerovium 1999 2012
115 Uup Ununpentium Mc Moscovium 2004 2016
116 Uuh Ununhexium Lv Livermorium 2000 2012
117 Uus Ununseptium Ts Tennessine 2010 2016
118 Uuo Ununoctium Og Oganesson 2006 2016

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Systematic element name

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A systematic element name is a temporary nomenclature assigned by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) to chemical elements with atomic numbers greater than 100, or to hypothetical elements, serving as a until permanent names are officially approved following discovery verification and proposal by the synthesizing team. These names ensure unambiguous reference in for transactinide elements, which are synthesized in particle accelerators and decay rapidly, often amid competing claims of discovery that require resolution by bodies like IUPAC and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP). The construction of a systematic element name derives directly from the : each digit is replaced by a corresponding numerical —nil for 0, un for 1, bi for 2, tri for 3, quad for 4, pent for 5, hex for 6, for 7, oct for 8, and enn for 9—concatenated in sequence and suffixed with "-ium" to form the name, while the provisional uses the first or first two letters of each (e.g., "U" for un-, "n" for nil-, "b" for bi-) followed by "o" if needed to denote the "-ium" ending. For instance, element 114 was systematically named ununquadium ( Uuq) before receiving the permanent name in , reflecting the need for a neutral, number-based to avoid premature eponyms or mythological references during the provisional phase. This approach, formalized in IUPAC recommendations to the late 1970s for elements beyond (Z=100), promotes consistency and prevents nomenclature disputes, as seen in historical cases like the prolonged debates over elements 104–108 in the . Once an element's synthesis is independently confirmed through joint IUPAC-IUPAP working groups, discoverers may propose permanent names—typically honoring scientists, places, or properties, with the suffix "-ium" mandatory for new metallic elements—the systematic name yielding to the approved one upon publication in Pure and Applied Chemistry. This process underscores the systematic names' role as placeholders in advancing research on the superheavy elements at the periodic table's frontier, where stability islands are predicted but empirical synthesis remains challenging.

Definition and Purpose

Core Concept and Rationale

The systematic element name functions as a provisional placeholder for chemical elements, constructed strictly from the via a sequence of Latin and Greek roots representing each digit (such as "nil-" for 0 and "un-" for 1), terminated by the suffix "-ium" to yield a neutral, number-derived identifier like "unnilquadium" for 104. This ensures referential clarity in scientific communication for elements whose existence or properties remain under verification, avoiding reliance on disputed syntheses or honorific proposals. The core rationale lies in upholding empirical rigor by deferring permanent naming until independent replication confirms the causal chain of discovery, thereby mitigating risks of premature endorsement that could conflate institutional claims with objective evidence. In synthesis, where detection often hinges on fleeting decay signatures rather than bulk properties, multiple laboratories may assert priority, as evidenced by historical rivalries in transuranic production; systematic names sidestep these by enforcing a data-driven over prestige-based . This framework aligns with principles of causal realism in , privileging reproducible assignment—grounded in spectroscopic or genetic lineage data—over narrative-driven attributions, thus fostering consensus in a field prone to geopolitical contention.

Distinction from Permanent Names

Systematic element names function as provisional designations derived algorithmically from an element's , employing Latin and Greek numerical roots (e.g., un- for one, bi- for two) combined with the suffix -ium, to provide a neutral, objective reference prior to formal approval. These names eschew any cultural, historical, or personal connotations, grounding identification strictly in the sequential atomic property verified through synthesis and analysis. Permanent names, by contrast, adhere to IUPAC criteria permitting derivations from mythological figures, astronomical objects, minerals, properties, places of discovery, or scientists' contributions, but only after multiple independent confirmations of the element's production, typically spanning years of experimental validation. For instance, element 116 transitioned from the systematic ununhexium (reflecting 116 as "one-one-six-ium") to livermorium, honoring the where key syntheses occurred, following IUPAC ratification on May 31, 2012. Similarly, element 118 shifted from ununoctium to oganesson on November 28, 2016, recognizing physicist Yuri Oganessian's role in research. This bifurcation enforces causal prioritization in nomenclature: systematic names anchor discourse to verifiable atomic sequencing and empirical properties during uncertainty, circumventing disputes over subjective attributions that could arise from unconfirmed claims, as seen in historical rivalries over transuranic discoveries. Permanent naming introduces interpretive flexibility only post-confirmation, aligning with the physical reality of stable isotope production rather than provisional hypotheses.

Historical Development

Early Naming Challenges in Transuranic Elements

The discovery of (element 93) in 1940 by and Philip Abelson at the , through neutron irradiation of , led to its naming after the planet to continue the celestial theme from . (element 94), synthesized shortly thereafter in late 1940 by Glenn Seaborg and colleagues via deuteron bombardment of , was similarly named after in 1941, reflecting institutional priorities at Berkeley's radiation laboratory rather than a standardized process. These early transuranic elements received names tied to discoverers' locations and mythological extensions, but without international verification protocols, setting a for later conflicts where synthesis claims lacked independent replication. Tensions escalated in the 1960s with element 104, as Soviet physicists at the in claimed its synthesis in 1964 through bombardment of and proposed the name kurchatovium (Ku) after Soviet nuclear pioneer . American researchers at Berkeley contested this in 1969, reporting their own production via and ions on californium-249 and advocating (Rf) in honor of , highlighting discrepancies in experimental data and isotopic identification that undermined mutual acceptance. Such nationalistic naming, often preceding conclusive evidence of reproducible decay chains, prioritized institutional narratives over empirical confirmation, eroding trust in journals and fostering prolonged disputes. The ensuing , spanning the 1960s to 1990s, intensified over elements 104 through 106, with rival U.S. and Soviet teams advancing unverified priority claims amid rivalry, resulting in parallel publications and rejected nomenclature proposals that delayed unified periodic table assignments. For instance, element 105 saw Berkeley's hahnium contested by Dubna's nielsbohrium, while element 106 proposals further entangled personal and national honors without resolving synthesis ambiguities. These ad hoc practices exposed a deficit in causal rigor, as names were affixed to preliminary detections rather than cross-verified production methods, prompting international skepticism and the eventual push for neutral, data-driven alternatives to avert diplomatic stalemates in atomic research.

IUPAC Formalization in the 1970s

In the early , disputes over the discovery and naming of transuranic elements, particularly element 104 synthesized independently by American and Soviet teams in 1964–1969, highlighted the need for an objective interim to avoid endorsing unverified claims of priority. The IUPAC Commission on the Nomenclature of , chaired by J. Chatt, initiated work on systematic naming procedures to prioritize the as the defining identifier, decoupling from contested historical attributions and enabling empirical discussion in . Between 1971 and 1978, the commission formulated rules for elements with atomic numbers greater than 100, drawing on the Mendeleev-era principle that atomic number governs elemental identity while extending it to provisional placeholders for undiscovered or unconfirmed species. These guidelines specified derivation from Latin numerical roots followed by the suffix "-ium," ensuring neutrality and universality without implying permanence. The recommendations were officially approved in and published in , marking the first standardized application to higher transuranics and facilitating their reference in publications pending rigorous verification of syntheses. This approach underscored causal realism by grounding identification in verifiable atomic properties rather than provisional discoverer preferences, thereby mitigating barriers to consensus in an era of accelerating .

Construction Rules

Numerical Prefix System

The numerical prefix system in systematic element nomenclature encodes each digit of the atomic number using a specific root derived from and Greek numerical terms, ensuring a precise, unambiguous, and internationally neutral representation. This mapping applies to digits 0 through 9 as follows:
DigitRoot
0nil
1un
2bi
3tri
4quad
5pent
6hex
7sept
8oct
9enn
To construct the prefix sequence, the is decomposed into its digits, ordered from the highest place value (hundreds, tens, units for elements up to 999) to the lowest, with each digit substituted by its corresponding root; no contractions or elisions occur at this stage to maintain modular clarity. For example, 119 decomposes to 1-1-9, mapping to un-un-enn, which highlights the system's additive, digit-by-digit logic without reliance on interpretive linguistic conventions. This approach prioritizes reproducibility and causal directness from the , leveraging timeless classical roots to sidestep ambiguities in contemporary or culture-specific numbering systems.

Name Assembly and Grammatical Rules

The systematic element name is constructed by sequentially concatenating the numerical root prefixes for the hundreds, tens, and units digits of the —in that descending order—directly without hyphens, spaces, or other separators, followed by the suffix "-ium". To ensure phonetic smoothness, rules eliminate redundancy: the terminal "n" in "enn" (denoting 9) is omitted before "nil" (denoting 0), and the terminal "i" in "bi" (2) or "tri" (3) is omitted before "-ium". These assembly procedures enforce a standardized, unambiguous format that prioritizes direct derivation from the over linguistic aesthetics or national conventions, as codified in IUPAC recommendations approved in 1978 and published in Pure and Applied Chemistry in 1979. This concatenation method, distinct from symbol formation (which uses initial letters of each root without hyphens), supports precise empirical referencing in international scientific communication by yielding unique, numerically explicit names that minimize interpretive errors in reporting and chemical notation. Grammatical rules mandate singular form for all systematic names, enabling seamless incorporation into chemical formulas, compounds, and reactions without pluralization or case adjustments that could introduce variability. The invariant "-ium" termination draws from Latin neuter noun conventions prevalent in classical element , promoting uniformity across inflected languages and averting disputes over gender agreement (e.g., masculine in some , neuter in others for traditional elements), thereby facilitating causal analysis and empirical consistency in global research.

Symbol Derivation

The symbols for systematic element names are formed by selecting the initial letter of each numerical prefix in the constructed name, excluding the terminal "-ium" suffix, to yield a three-letter : the first letter is uppercase, and the following letters are lowercase. For example, the name ununnilium for 110 produces the Uun, from 'U' (un-), 'u' (un-), and 'n' (nil-). This derivation directly reflects the atomic number's , as the prefixes encode its digits (0 as nil-, 1 as un-, etc.), ensuring visual and structural alignment between name, , and position in the periodic table. Limited to three letters, these symbols provide a compact notation suitable for scientific use in chemical equations, reaction schemes, and periodic table representations, where is essential. Unlike the one- or two-letter symbols of established elements, the three-letter format signals the provisional nature of the designation, reducing risks of misidentification in publications on synthesis. This algorithmic approach, rooted in the rather than eponyms or descriptive terms, facilitates precise referencing in empirical studies of nuclear reactions and predicted properties, enabling researchers to analyze causal relationships—such as stability trends or synthesis yields—without ambiguity from subjective naming influences.

Applications and Examples

Systematic Names for Elements 104–118

Element 104, first synthesized in 1969 at the (JINR) and but subject to competing claims, utilized the systematic name unnilquadium (Unq) in during verification efforts in the 1970s and 1980s, including theoretical calculations of its ionization potentials and atomic radii. This placeholder facilitated neutral reference amid the until IUPAC approved rutherfordium (Rf) on August 1, 1997, honoring physicist . Elements 105 through 109 followed similar patterns, employing systematic designations like unnilpentium (Unp) for 105 until their 1997 naming as (Db), (Sg), (Bh), (Hs), and (Mt), respectively, resolving disputes between American and Soviet teams. Subsequent elements synthesized primarily at the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI) in retained systematic names longer due to phased verifications. Element 110, confirmed in 2000, was unununium (Unu) before becoming (Ds) in 2003; element 111 transitioned from ununnilium (Une) to (Rg) in 2004; and element 112, synthesized in 1996 at GSI, used ununbium (Uub) in publications through the 2000s until named (Cn) in 2010, commemorating . Element 114, produced via fusion at JINR in 1999, employed ununquadium (Uuq) during collaborative confirmation with before IUPAC endorsement of (Fl) in 2012, named after the Flerov Laboratory. Heavier elements 113, 115, 116, 117, and 118, synthesized through international efforts at (), JINR, (), and Lawrence Livermore, relied on systematic such as ununtrium (Uut) for 113 and ununoctium (Uuo) for 118 in experimental reports from the to mid-2010s, aiding cross-verification of decay chains amid rarity of production. These transitioned en masse in 2016 to nihonium () for 113 ( discovery), moscovium () and oganesson () for 115 and 118 (JINR-led), livermorium () for 116 (Joint JINR-Livermore, named 2012 alongside flerovium), and tennessine () for 117 (-JINR collaboration). The systematic phase for these elements underscored their provisional status during multi-lab reproductions essential for IUPAC consensus.
Atomic NumberSystematic Name (Symbol)Permanent Name (Symbol)Naming Year
104Unnilquadium (Unq)1997
105Unnilpentium (Unp)1997
106Unnilhexium (Unh)1997
107Unnilseptium (Uns)1997
108Unniloctium (Uno)1997
109Unnilennium (Une)1997
110Ununnilium (Unu)2003
111Unununium (Uuu)2004
112Ununbium (Uub)2010
113Ununtrium (Uut)2016
114Ununquadium (Uuq)2012
115Ununpentium (Uup)Moscovium (Mc)2016
116Ununhexium (Uuh)Livermorium (Lv)2012
117Ununseptium (Uus)Tennessine (Ts)2016
118Ununoctium (Uuo)Oganesson (Og)2016
Systematic names thus bridged discovery announcements from labs like GSI and JINR to final , appearing in peer-reviewed syntheses and studies until permanent adoption.

Hypothetical Names for Elements Beyond 118

The systematic extends seamlessly to hypothetical elements beyond Z=118, providing neutral placeholders for theoretical discussions without implying existence or . For Z=119, the name (symbol Uue) derives from the atomic number's digits—1 (un-), 1 (un-), 9 (enn-)—followed by the suffix -ium, adhering to IUPAC rules for provisional naming. Likewise, Z=120 yields (Ubn), from 1 (un-), 2 (bi-), and 0 (nil-). These constructs maintain consistency with prior transuranic elements, enabling precise reference in computational models of nuclear structure where direct synthesis data is absent. In research, such names serve as anchors for predicting stability trends, particularly toward the theorized near Z=114–126, where closed nuclear shells could yield isotopes with half-lives exceeding microseconds—potentially seconds or longer—contrasting the femtosecond decays observed in known superheavies. For instance, models forecast enhanced fission barriers for even-Z nuclei like Z=120, influencing beam-target selections in experiments. Yet, causal analysis rooted in reveals these predictions hinge on untested extrapolations of interactions, as relativistic effects and QED corrections intensify with Z, rendering first-principles simulations approximate without empirical calibration from heavier verified isotopes. Experimental pursuits, including RIKEN's multiyear campaign since 2018 using the 248^{248}Cm(51^{51}V,xnxn) reaction to target 299−x^{299-x}, invoke in protocols and separation schemes like GARIS-II, facilitating international comparisons amid competing claims. No confirmed detections have materialized by late , underscoring technological limits: fusion probabilities drop exponentially with asymmetry, and residue cross-sections may fall below 1 pb, demanding luminosities beyond current accelerators. Thus, while systematic names aid formulation, their application demands rigorous verification via genetic decay chains linking to known nuclides, guarding against premature assertions detached from reproducible .

Role in Discovery Verification

Bridging Discovery Claims and Confirmation

Following initial synthesis claims for superheavy elements, systematic names serve as provisional descriptors in peer-reviewed literature, enabling neutral evaluation of experimental data such as fusion-evaporation cross-sections, sequences, and half-lives without prematurely linking nomenclature to specific laboratories or teams. For elements 115 and 117, first reported in 2003–2004 by collaborations between the (JINR) and (LLNL) using designations like ununpentium (Uup) and ununseptium (Uus), these names facilitated ongoing scrutiny and replication efforts through the 2000s and early 2010s. Subsequent independent confirmations, including experiments at GSI Helmholtz Centre in 2012–2013 that reproduced decay chains for elements 115 and 117, relied on the same systematic references to compare nuclear properties across facilities, ensuring verification hinged on consistent empirical outcomes rather than isolated reports. Element 118, claimed in by JINR/LLNL under ununoctium (Uuo), similarly underwent multi-site validation focusing on reproducible reaction yields before joint IUPAC/IUPAP endorsement in December 2015 for elements 113–118. This methodical interval under systematic , spanning over a decade for some claims, prevented expedited recognition amid potential disputes over synthesis priority, prioritizing cross-verified data from heavy-ion accelerators over narrative assertions of precedence. The approval of permanent names—nihonium (113), (115), tennessine (117), and (118)—only followed this rigorous empirical bridging, replacing placeholders after demonstrable replication.

Impact on International Scientific Consensus

The adoption of systematic element nomenclature by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in 1978 established a standardized, atomic-number-based temporary naming system that minimized politicized conflicts over discovery credits, providing a neutral placeholder during verification processes. This framework shifted focus from immediate honorific naming—often tied to national or institutional rivalries—to empirical validation of synthesis data, as seen in the resolution of lingering disputes over elements beyond 100. Prior to 1978, such as in the 1958 controversy, competing claims led to parallel naming by Soviet and American teams without unified consensus; post-1978, systematic names like unnilhexium for element 106 served as impartial references, enabling joint IUPAC commissions to prioritize cross-verified experimental evidence over prestige. A key example is the 1990s dispute over element 106, where the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory proposed "seaborgium" while facing opposition from IUPAC's initial recommendations favoring alternatives like rutherfordium reassignment; systematic nomenclature bridged the impasse, allowing provisional use until a 1997 compromise accepted seaborgium following negotiations and independent data review by international panels. This process exemplified reduced "wars" compared to pre-1978 eras, as systematic names decoupled naming from discovery priority, fostering collaborative verification among labs in the US, Russia, and Europe rather than entrenching divisions. By grounding nomenclature solely in atomic number (Z), the system countered biases favoring prominent institutions, ensuring claims from diverse groups underwent rigorous, data-driven scrutiny without deference to historical dominance. The system's efficacy is evident in verifiable outcomes like the 2016 IUPAC recognition of elements 113, 115, 117, and 118, which completed the seventh period of the periodic table through consensus on multi-lab syntheses—Japanese for 113, Russian-American collaborations for 115 and 117—verified against systematic placeholders like ununtrium. This update prioritized reproducible decay chains and cross-laboratory confirmations over political or lab-size considerations, demonstrating how atomic-number-centric naming enabled impartial global standards and integrated contributions from smaller teams, such as RIKEN's, into the consensus without favoritism toward established superheavy element facilities. Overall, these historical resolutions highlight the nomenclature's role in promoting evidence-based unity, with fewer protracted battles and more efficient periodic table advancements since its implementation.

Criticisms and Limitations

Potential for Confusion with Permanent Names

The prevalence of the "-ium" suffix in systematic element names, derived from Latin/Greek numerical roots followed by standard terminations for metals or nonmetals, creates phonetic and orthographic overlap with permanent names such as copernicium (element 112, formerly ununbium). This similarity poses a risk of miscommunication in scientific literature, particularly during transitional periods when provisional designations persist in citations or databases before official ratification. IUPAC recommendations explicitly address this vulnerability, advising that "to avoid confusion in the literature, when a name has been used for a particular element, but a different name is ultimately chosen," authors must clarify provisional status to prevent erroneous attributions. Instances of such overlap, though infrequent, have been flagged in reviews, including provisional symbol conflicts in early electronic databases for elements during the and , when elements like 104–118 relied solely on systematic forms amid competing discovery claims. To counter these issues, IUPAC mandates distinct provisional symbols (e.g., "Uub" for ununbium) and requires explicit labeling of temporary names in publications, alongside rapid updates post-confirmation. However, these protocols reveal broader limitations of purely systematic , as the formulaic structure prioritizes universality over mnemonic , occasionally complicating retrieval and verification in interdisciplinary contexts.

Debates on Provisional vs. Descriptive Utility

In the 1980s, during heated disputes over the naming of transuranic elements like 104 (unnilquadium) and 105 (unnilpentium), some chemists critiqued the IUPAC systematic for its perceived opacity, arguing that the Latin-Greek root constructions—encoding atomic numbers via prefixes like un- (1), nil- (0), and -ium—offered little intuitive grasp beyond rote numerical translation, complicating casual reference and mental mapping in discussions. Proponents of alternatives, such as direct atomic number designations (e.g., "element 105"), contended this approach better served provisional communication by avoiding cumbersome neologisms that hindered quick recall without adding property-based insight, especially given the relativistic distortions rendering traditional chemical descriptors unreliable for superheavies. Counterarguments highlighted the nomenclature's proven descriptive utility in anchoring debates to empirical atomic numbers confirmed via synthesis cross-verifications, as evidenced by its mandatory use in IUPAC resolutions for elements 104–106 amid U.S.-Soviet rivalries, where eponymous bids (e.g., "hahnium" vs. "nielsbohrium") risked injecting nationalistic or biases that obscured synthesis facts. The system's formal adoption in 1978 and subsequent application to elements up to 118 underscored its superiority over alternatives, fostering consensus by prioritizing verifiable proton counts from accelerator over premature property allusions, which often faltered due to fleeting half-lives (e.g., dubnium-262's 34-second span). This tension resolved in favor of systematic rigidity, as its number-centric —directly tying names to the defining synthesis metric—sidestepped dilutions from "neutral" tweaks like hybrid eponyms, ensuring focus on replicable evidence rather than interpretive flair; ongoing use for hypothetical extensions beyond 118 affirms this data-driven precedence, with critiques of opacity yielding to the nomenclature's role in sustaining objective verification amid sparse experimental yields (often single atoms).

References

  1. https://iupac.qmul.ac.uk/AtWt/element.html
  2. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/explainer-how-a-new-element-gets-its-name/1017676.article
  3. https://www.periodni.com/naming_of_new_elements.html
  4. https://iupac.org/what-we-do/periodic-table-of-elements/
  5. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/pac-2015-0802/html
  6. https://iupac.org/recommendation/how-to-name-new-chemical-elements/
  7. https://iupac.org/discovery-and-assignment-of-elements-with-atomic-numbers-113-115-117-and-118/
  8. https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/16029/why-is-a-temporary-name-given-to-an-element-with-an-atomic-number-above-100
  9. https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/93/neptunium
  10. https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/94/plutonium
  11. https://www.nature.com/articles/nchem.499
  12. https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/transuranium-elements-at-berkeley-lab.html
  13. https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/the-transfermium-wars-scientific-brawling-and-name-calling-during-the-cold-war/
  14. http://pac.iupac.org/publications/pac/51/2/0381/
  15. https://iupac.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Red_Book_2005.pdf
  16. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article/93/11/8041/98024/Ionization-potentials-and-radii-of-atoms-and-ions
  17. https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i48/Names-elements-113-115-117.html
  18. https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/112/copernicium
  19. https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/114/flerovium
  20. https://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i24/IUPAC-Approves-Element-Names.html
  21. https://www.jinr.ru/posts/names-for-the-new-elements-113-115-117-and-118/
  22. https://physicsworld.com/a/hunt-for-the-superheavies/
  23. https://www.vedantu.com/chemistry/nomenclature-of-elements-with-atomic-number-above-100
  24. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/Physics.17.150
  25. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023APS..HAWWRB002H/abstract
  26. https://www.llnl.gov/article/41866/lawrence-livermore-credited-discovery-elements-115-117-118
  27. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/us/uut-and-uup-add-their-atomic-mass-to-periodic-table.html
  28. https://www.ornl.gov/news/ornl-team-officially-recognized-elements-115-117-discovery
  29. https://iupac.org/iupac-announces-the-names-of-the-elements-113-115-117-and-118/
  30. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/confirmation-of-four-new-elements-completes-seventh-row-of-periodic-table-/9312.article
  31. https://newsarchive.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/seaborgium.html
  32. https://iupac.org/iupac-is-naming-the-four-new-elements-nihonium-moscovium-tennessine-and-oganesson/
  33. https://iupac.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/names-and-symbols-of-elements.pdf
  34. http://old.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract01/koppenol_prs.pdf
  35. https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/reso/004/03/0053-0061
  36. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/71875/1/141.pdf
  37. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.04064
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.