Hubbry Logo
TennessineTennessineMain
Open search
Tennessine
Community hub
Tennessine
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tennessine
Tennessine
Tennessine
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Tennessine, 117Ts
Tennessine
Pronunciation/ˈtɛnəsiːn/ ⓘ[1] ​(TEN-ə-seen)
Appearancesemimetallic (predicted)[2]
Mass number[294]
Tennessine 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
At
↑
Ts
↓
—
livermorium ← tennessine → oganesson
Atomic number (Z)117
Groupgroup 17 (halogens)
Periodperiod 7
Block  p-block
Electron configuration[Rn] 5f14 6d10 7s2 7p5 (predicted)[3]
Electrons per shell2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 7 (predicted)
Physical properties
Phase at STPsolid (predicted)[3][4]
Melting point623–823 K ​(350–550 °C, ​662–1022 °F) (predicted)[3]
Boiling point883 K ​(610 °C, ​1130 °F) (predicted)[3]
Density (near r.t.)7.1–7.3 g/cm3 (extrapolated)[4]
Atomic properties
Oxidation statescommon: (none)
(−1), (+5)
Ionization energies
  • 1st: 742.9 kJ/mol (predicted)[5]
  • 2nd: 1435.4 kJ/mol (predicted)[5]
  • 3rd: 2161.9 kJ/mol (predicted)[5]
  • (more)
Atomic radiusempirical: 138 pm (predicted)[4]
Covalent radius156–157 pm (extrapolated)[4]
Other properties
Natural occurrencesynthetic
CAS Number54101-14-3
History
Namingafter Tennessee region
DiscoveryJoint Institute for Nuclear Research, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Vanderbilt University and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2010)
Isotopes of tennessine
Main isotopes[6] Decay
Isotope abun­dance half-life (t1/2) mode pro­duct
293Ts synth 22 ms[6][7] α 289Mc
294Ts synth 51 ms[8] α 290Mc
 Category: Tennessine
| references

Tennessine is a synthetic element; it has symbol Ts and atomic number 117. It has the second-highest atomic number, the joint-highest atomic mass of all known elements, and is the penultimate element of the 7th period of the periodic table. It is named after the U.S. state of Tennessee, where key research institutions involved in its discovery are located (however, the IUPAC says that the element is named after the "region of Tennessee").

The discovery of tennessine was officially announced in Dubna, Russia, by a Russian–American collaboration in April 2010, which makes it the most recently discovered element. One of its daughter isotopes was created directly in 2011, partially confirming the experiment's results. The experiment was successfully repeated by the same collaboration in 2012 and by a joint German–American team in May 2014. In December 2015, the Joint Working Party of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP), which evaluates claims of discovery of new elements, recognized the element and assigned the priority to the Russian–American team. In June 2016, the IUPAC published a declaration stating that the discoverers had suggested the name tennessine, a name which was officially adopted in November 2016.[a]

Tennessine may be located in the "island of stability", a concept that explains why some superheavy elements are more stable despite an overall trend of decreasing stability for elements beyond bismuth on the periodic table. The synthesized tennessine atoms have lasted tens and hundreds of milliseconds. In the periodic table, tennessine is expected to be a member of group 17, the halogens.[b] Some of its properties may differ significantly from those of the lighter halogens due to relativistic effects. As a result, tennessine is expected to be a volatile metal that neither forms anions nor achieves high oxidation states. A few key properties, such as its melting and boiling points and its first ionization energy, are nevertheless expected to follow the periodic trends of the halogens.

Introduction

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Superheavy element § Introduction.[edit]

Synthesis of superheavy nuclei

[edit]
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[c] atomic nucleus is created in a nuclear reaction that combines two other nuclei of unequal size[d] into one; roughly, the more unequal the two nuclei in terms of mass, the greater the possibility that the two react.[15] 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.[16] 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.[16]

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.[16][17] This happens because during the attempted formation of a single nucleus, electrostatic repulsion tears apart the nucleus that is being formed.[16] 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.[e] 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.[16]

External videos
video icon Visualization of unsuccessful nuclear fusion, based on calculations from the Australian National University[19]

The resulting merger is an excited state[20]—termed a compound nucleus—and thus it is very unstable.[16] To reach a more stable state, the temporary merger may fission without formation of a more stable nucleus.[21] 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.[21] 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.[22][f]

Decay and detection

[edit]

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.[24] In the separator, the newly produced nucleus is separated from other nuclides (that of the original beam and any other reaction products)[g] 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.[24] The transfer takes about 10−6 seconds; in order to be detected, the nucleus must survive this long.[27] The nucleus is recorded again once its decay is registered, and the location, the energy, and the time of the decay are measured.[24]

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.[28] 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.[29][30] Superheavy nuclei are thus theoretically predicted[31] and have so far been observed[32] to predominantly decay via decay modes that are caused by such repulsion: alpha decay and spontaneous fission.[h] Almost all alpha emitters have over 210 nucleons,[34] and the lightest nuclide primarily undergoing spontaneous fission has 238.[35] In both decay modes, nuclei are inhibited from decaying by corresponding energy barriers for each mode, but they can be tunneled through.[29][30]

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.[36]

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.[37] Spontaneous fission is caused by electrostatic repulsion tearing the nucleus apart and produces various nuclei in different instances of identical nuclei fissioning.[30] 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),[38] and by 30 orders of magnitude from thorium (element 90) to fermium (element 100).[39] 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.[30][40] 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.[30][40] 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.[41] Experiments on lighter superheavy nuclei,[42] as well as those closer to the expected island,[38] have shown greater than previously anticipated stability against spontaneous fission, showing the importance of shell effects on nuclei.[i]

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.[j] (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.)[24] 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).[k] Spontaneous fission, however, produces various nuclei as products, so the original nuclide cannot be determined from its daughters.[l]

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.[m]

History

[edit]
See also: Timeline of chemical element discoveries

Pre-discovery

[edit]

In December 2004, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) team in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russia, proposed a joint experiment with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States, to synthesize element 117 — so called for the 117 protons in its nucleus. Their proposal involved fusing a berkelium (element 97) target and a calcium (element 20) beam, conducted via bombardment of the berkelium target with calcium nuclei:[53] this would complete a set of experiments done at the JINR on the fusion of actinide targets with a calcium-48 beam, which had thus far produced the new elements 113–116 and 118. ORNL—then the world's only producer of berkelium—could not then provide the element, as they had temporarily ceased production,[53] and re-initiating it would be too costly.[54] Plans to synthesize element 117 were suspended in favor of the confirmation of element 118, which had been produced earlier in 2002 by bombarding a californium target with calcium.[55] The required berkelium-249 is a by-product in californium-252 production, and obtaining the required amount of berkelium was an even more difficult task than obtaining that of californium, as well as costly: It would cost around 3.5 million dollars, and the parties agreed to wait for a commercial order of californium production, from which berkelium could be extracted.[54][56]

The JINR team sought to use berkelium because calcium-48, the isotope of calcium used in the beam, has 20 protons and 28 neutrons, making a neutron–proton ratio of 1.4; and it is the lightest stable or near-stable nucleus with such a large neutron excess. Thanks to the neutron excess, the resulting nuclei were expected to be heavier and closer to the sought-after island of stability.[n] Of the aimed for 117 protons, calcium has 20, and thus they needed to use berkelium, which has 97 protons in its nucleus.[6]

In February 2005, the leader of the JINR team — Yuri Oganessian — presented a colloquium at ORNL. Also in attendance were representatives of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who had previously worked with JINR on the discovery of elements 113–116 and 118, and Joseph Hamilton of Vanderbilt University, a collaborator of Oganessian.[58]

Hamilton checked if the ORNL high-flux reactor produced californium for a commercial order: The required berkelium could be obtained as a by-product. He learned that it did not and there was no expectation for such an order in the immediate future. Hamilton kept monitoring the situation, making the checks once in a while. (Later, Oganessian referred to Hamilton as "the father of 117" for doing this work.)[58]

Discovery

[edit]

ORNL resumed californium production in spring 2008. Hamilton noted the restart during the summer and made a deal on subsequent extraction of berkelium[59] (the price was about $600,000).[60] During a September 2008 symposium at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, celebrating his 50th year on the Physics faculty, Hamilton introduced Oganessian to James Roberto (then the deputy director for science and technology at ORNL).[61] They established a collaboration among JINR, ORNL, and Vanderbilt.[56] Clarice Phelps was part of ORNL's team that collaborated with JINR;[62] this is particularly notable as because of it the IUPAC recognizes her as the first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of a chemical element.[62][63][64][65] The eventual collaborating institutions also included The University of Tennessee (Knoxville), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, The Research Institute for Advanced Reactors (Russia), and The University of Nevada (Las Vegas).[66]

A very small sample of a blue liquid in a plastic pipette held by a hand wearing heavy protection equipment
The berkelium target used for the synthesis (in solution)

In November 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy, which had oversight over the reactor in Oak Ridge, allowed the scientific use of the extracted berkelium.[67]

The production lasted 250 days and ended in late December 2008,[68] resulting in 22 milligrams of berkelium, enough to perform the experiment.[69] In January 2009, the berkelium was removed from ORNL's High Flux Isotope Reactor;[67] it was subsequently cooled for 90 days and then processed at ORNL's Radiochemical Engineering and Development Center to separate and purify the berkelium material, which took another 90 days.[56] Its half-life is only 330 days: this means, after that time, half the berkelium produced would have decayed. Because of this, the berkelium target had to be quickly transported to Russia; for the experiment to be viable, it had to be completed within six months of its departure from the United States.[56] The target was packed into five lead containers to be flown from New York to Moscow.[56] Russian customs officials twice refused to let the target enter the country because of missing or incomplete paperwork. Over the span of a few days, the target traveled over the Atlantic Ocean five times.[56] On its arrival in Russia in June 2009, the berkelium was immediately transferred to Research Institute of Atomic Reactors (RIAR) in Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk Oblast, where it was deposited as a 300-nanometer-thin layer on a titanium film.[68] In July 2009, it was transported to Dubna,[68] where it was installed in the particle accelerator at the JINR.[69] The calcium-48 beam was generated by chemically extracting the small quantities of calcium-48 present in naturally occurring calcium, enriching it 500 times.[67] This work was done in the closed town of Lesnoy, Sverdlovsk Oblast, Russia.[67]

The experiment began in late July 2009.[67] In January 2010, scientists at the Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions announced internally that they had detected the decay of a new element with atomic number 117 via two decay chains: one of an odd–odd isotope undergoing 6 alpha decays before spontaneous fission, and one of an odd–even isotope undergoing 3 alpha decays before fission.[70] The obtained data from the experiment was sent to the LLNL for further analysis.[71] On 9 April 2010, an official report was released in the journal Physical Review Letters identifying the isotopes as 294117 and 293117, which were shown to have half-lives on the order of tens or hundreds of milliseconds. The work was signed by all parties involved in the experiment to some extent: JINR, ORNL, LLNL, RIAR, Vanderbilt, the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, Tennessee, U.S.), and the University of Nevada (Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.), which provided data analysis support.[72] The isotopes were formed as follows:[73][o]

249
97Bk + 48
20Ca → 297117* → 294117 + 3 1
0n (1 event)
249
97Bk + 48
20Ca → 297117* → 293117 + 4 1
0n (5 events)

Confirmation

[edit]
Decay chain of the atoms produced in the original experiment. The figures near the arrows describe experimental (black) and theoretical (blue) values for the lifetime and energy of each decay. Lifetimes may be converted to half-lives by multiplying by ln 2.[73]

All daughter isotopes (decay products) of element 117 were previously unknown;[73] therefore, their properties could not be used to confirm the claim of discovery. In 2011, when one of the decay products (289115) was synthesized directly, its properties matched those measured in the claimed indirect synthesis from the decay of element 117.[74] The discoverers did not submit a claim for their findings in 2007–2011 when the Joint Working Party was reviewing claims of discoveries of new elements.[75]

The Dubna team repeated the experiment in 2012, creating seven atoms of element 117 and confirming their earlier synthesis of element 118 (produced after some time when a significant quantity of the berkelium-249 target had beta decayed to californium-249). The results of the experiment matched the previous outcome;[8] the scientists then filed an application to register the element.[citation needed] In May 2014, a joint German–American collaboration of scientists from the ORNL and the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany, claimed to have confirmed discovery of the element.[7][76] The team repeated the Dubna experiment using the Darmstadt accelerator, creating two atoms of element 117.[7]

In December 2015, the JWP officially recognized the discovery of 293117 on account of the confirmation of the properties of its daughter 289115,[77] and thus the listed discoverers — JINR, LLNL, and ORNL — were given the right to suggest an official name for the element. (Vanderbilt was left off the initial list of discoverers in an error that was later corrected.)[78]

In May 2016, Lund University (Lund, Scania, Sweden) and GSI cast some doubt on the syntheses of elements 115 and 117. The decay chains assigned to 289115, the isotope instrumental in the confirmation of the syntheses of elements 115 and 117, were found based on a new statistical method to be too different to belong to the same nuclide with a reasonably high probability. The reported 293117 decay chains approved as such by the JWP were found to require splitting into individual data sets assigned to different isotopes of element 117. It was also found that the claimed link between the decay chains reported as from 293117 and 289115 probably did not exist. (On the other hand, the chains from the non-approved isotope 294117 were found to be congruent.) The multiplicity of states found when nuclides that are not even–even undergo alpha decay is not unexpected and contributes to the lack of clarity in the cross-reactions. This study criticized the JWP report for overlooking subtleties associated with this issue, and considered it "problematic" that the only argument for the acceptance of the discoveries of elements 115 and 117 was a link they considered to be doubtful.[79][80]

On 8 June 2017, two members of the Dubna team published a journal article answering these criticisms, analysing their data on the nuclides 293117 and 289115 with widely accepted statistical methods, noted that the 2016 studies indicating non-congruence produced problematic results when applied to radioactive decay: they excluded from the 90% confidence interval both average and extreme decay times, and the decay chains that would be excluded from the 90% confidence interval they chose were more probable to be observed than those that would be included. The 2017 reanalysis concluded that the observed decay chains of 293117 and 289115 were consistent with the assumption that only one nuclide was present at each step of the chain, although it would be desirable to be able to directly measure the mass number of the originating nucleus of each chain as well as the excitation function of the 243Am + 48Ca reaction.[81]

Naming

[edit]
Main campus of Hamilton's workplace, Vanderbilt University, one of the institutions named as co-discoverers of tennessine

Using Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, element 117 should be known as eka-astatine. Using the 1979 recommendations by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), the element was temporarily called ununseptium (symbol Uus), formed from Latin roots "one", "one", and "seven", a reference to the element's atomic number 117.[82] Many scientists in the field called it "element 117", with the symbol E117, (117), or 117.[3] According to guidelines of IUPAC valid at the moment of the discovery approval, the permanent names of new elements should have ended in "-ium"; this included element 117, even if the element was a halogen, which traditionally have names ending in "-ine";[83] however, the new recommendations published in 2016 recommended using the "-ine" ending for all new group 17 elements.[84]

After the original synthesis in 2010, Dawn Shaughnessy of LLNL and Oganessian declared that naming was a sensitive question, and it was avoided as far as possible.[85] However, Hamilton, who teaches at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, declared that year, "I was crucial in getting the group together and in getting the 249Bk target essential for the discovery. As a result of that, I'm going to get to name the element. I can't tell you the name, but it will bring distinction to the region."[72] In a 2015 interview, Oganessian, after telling the story of the experiment, said, "and the Americans named this a tour de force, they had demonstrated they could do [this] with no margin for error. Well, soon they will name the 117th element."[86]

In March 2016, the discovery team agreed on a conference call involving representatives from the parties involved on the name "tennessine" for element 117.[58] In June 2016, IUPAC published a declaration stating the discoverers had submitted their suggestions for naming the new elements 115, 117, and 118 to the IUPAC; the suggestion for the element 117 was tennessine, with a symbol of Ts, after "the region of Tennessee".[a] The suggested names were recommended for acceptance by the IUPAC Inorganic Chemistry Division; formal acceptance was set to occur after a five-month term following publishing of the declaration expires.[87] In November 2016, the names, including tennessine, were formally accepted. Concerns that the proposed symbol Ts may clash with a notation for the tosyl group used in organic chemistry were rejected, following existing symbols bearing such dual meanings: Ac (actinium and acetyl) and Pr (praseodymium and propyl).[88] The naming ceremony for moscovium, tennessine, and oganesson was held on 2 March 2017 at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow; a separate ceremony for tennessine alone had been held at ORNL in January 2017.[89]

Predicted properties

[edit]

Other than nuclear properties, no properties of tennessine or its compounds have been measured; this is due to its extremely limited and expensive production[60] and the fact that it decays very quickly. Properties of tennessine remain unknown and only predictions are available.

Nuclear stability and isotopes

[edit]
Main article: Isotopes of tennessine
See also: Island of stability

The stability of nuclei quickly decreases with the increase in atomic number after curium, element 96, whose half-life is four orders of magnitude longer than that of any subsequent element. All isotopes with an atomic number above 101 undergo radioactive decay with half-lives of less than 30 hours. No elements with atomic numbers above 82 (after lead) have stable isotopes.[90] This is because of the ever-increasing Coulomb repulsion of protons, so that the strong nuclear force cannot hold the nucleus together against spontaneous fission for long. Calculations suggest that in the absence of other stabilizing factors, elements with more than 104 protons should not exist.[91] However, researchers in the 1960s suggested that the closed nuclear shells around 114 protons and 184 neutrons should counteract this instability, creating an "island of stability" where nuclides could have half-lives reaching thousands or millions of years. While scientists have still not reached the island, the mere existence of the superheavy elements (including tennessine) confirms that this stabilizing effect is real, and in general the known superheavy nuclides become exponentially longer-lived as they approach the predicted location of the island.[92][93] Tennessine is the second-heaviest element created so far, and all its known isotopes have half-lives of less than one second. Nevertheless, this is longer than the values predicted prior to their discovery: the predicted lifetimes for 293Ts and 294Ts used in the discovery paper were 10 ms and 45 ms respectively, while the observed lifetimes were 21 ms and 112 ms respectively.[73] The Dubna team believes that the synthesis of the element is direct experimental proof of the existence of the island of stability.[94]

A 2D graph with rectangular cells colored in black-and-white colors, spanning from the llc to the urc, with cells mostly becoming lighter closer to the latter
A chart of nuclide stability as used by the Dubna team in 2010. Characterized isotopes are shown with borders. According to the discoverers, the synthesis of element 117 serves as definite proof of the existence of the "island of stability" (circled).[94]

It has been calculated that the isotope 295Ts would have a half-life of about 18 milliseconds, and it may be possible to produce this isotope via the same berkelium–calcium reaction used in the discoveries of the known isotopes, 293Ts and 294Ts. The chance of this reaction producing 295Ts is estimated to be, at most, one-seventh the chance of producing 294Ts.[27][95][96] This isotope could also be produced in a pxn channel of the 249Cf+48Ca reaction that successfully produced oganesson, evaporating a proton alongside some neutrons; the heavier tennessine isotopes 296Ts and 297Ts could similarly be produced in the 251Cf+48Ca reaction.[97][98] Calculations using a quantum tunneling model predict the existence of several isotopes of tennessine up to 303Ts. The most stable of these is expected to be 296Ts with an alpha-decay half-life of 40 milliseconds.[99] A liquid drop model study on the element's isotopes shows similar results; it suggests a general trend of increasing stability for isotopes heavier than 301Ts, with partial half-lives exceeding the age of the universe for the heaviest isotopes like 335Ts when beta decay is not considered.[100] Lighter isotopes of tennessine may be produced in the 243Am+50Ti reaction, which was considered as a contingency plan by the Dubna team in 2008 if 249Bk proved unavailable;[101] the isotopes 289Ts through 292Ts could also be produced as daughters of element 119 isotopes that can be produced in the 243Am+54Cr and 249Bk+50Ti reactions.[102]

Atomic and physical

[edit]

Tennessine is expected to be a member of group 17 in the periodic table, below the five halogens; fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine, each of which has seven valence electrons with a configuration of ns2np5.[103][p] For tennessine, being in the seventh period (row) of the periodic table, continuing the trend would predict a valence electron configuration of 7s27p5,[3] and it would therefore be expected to behave similarly to the halogens in many respects that relate to this electronic state. However, going down group 17, the metallicity of the elements increases; for example, iodine already exhibits a metallic luster in the solid state, and astatine is expected to be a metal.[104] As such, an extrapolation based on periodic trends would predict tennessine to be a rather volatile metal.[105]

Black-on-transparent graph, width greater than height, with the main part of the graph being filled with short horizontal stripes
Atomic energy levels of outermost s, p, and d electrons of chlorine (d orbitals not applicable), bromine, iodine, astatine, and tennessine

Calculations have confirmed the accuracy of this simple extrapolation, although experimental verification of this is currently impossible as the half-lives of the known tennessine isotopes are too short.[105] Significant differences between tennessine and the previous halogens are likely to arise, largely due to spin–orbit interaction—the mutual interaction between the motion and spin of electrons. The spin–orbit interaction is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons move faster—at velocities comparable to the speed of light—than those in lighter atoms.[106] In tennessine atoms, this lowers the 7s and the 7p electron energy levels, stabilizing the corresponding electrons, although two of the 7p electron energy levels are more stabilized than the other four.[107] The stabilization of the 7s electrons is called the inert pair effect; the effect that separates the 7p subshell into the more-stabilized and the less-stabilized parts is called subshell splitting. Computational chemists understand the split as a change of the second (azimuthal) quantum number l from 1 to 1/2 and 3/2 for the more-stabilized and less-stabilized parts of the 7p subshell, respectively.[108][q] For many theoretical purposes, the valence electron configuration may be represented to reflect the 7p subshell split as 7s2
7p2
1/27p3
3/2.[3]

Differences for other electron levels also exist. For example, the 6d electron levels (also split in two, with four being 6d3/2 and six being 6d5/2) are both raised, so they are close in energy to the 7s ones,[107] although no 6d electron chemistry has ever been predicted for tennessine. The difference between the 7p1/2 and 7p3/2 levels is abnormally high; 9.8 eV.[107] Astatine's 6p subshell split is only 3.8 eV,[107] and its 6p1/2 chemistry has already been called "limited".[109] These effects cause tennessine's chemistry to differ from those of its upper neighbors (see below).

Tennessine's first ionization energy—the energy required to remove an electron from a neutral atom—is predicted to be 7.7 eV, lower than those of the halogens, again following the trend.[3] Like its neighbors in the periodic table, tennessine is expected to have the lowest electron affinity—energy released when an electron is added to the atom—in its group; 2.6 or 1.8 eV.[3] The electron of the hypothetical hydrogen-like tennessine atom—oxidized so it has only one electron, Ts116+—is predicted to move so quickly that its mass is 1.90 times that of a non-moving electron, a feature attributable to relativistic effects. For comparison, the figure for hydrogen-like astatine is 1.27 and the figure for hydrogen-like iodine is 1.08.[110] Simple extrapolations of relativity laws indicate a contraction of atomic radius.[110] Advanced calculations show that the radius of a tennessine atom that has formed one covalent bond would be 165 pm, while that of astatine would be 147 pm.[111] With the seven outermost electrons removed, tennessine is finally smaller; 57 pm[3] for tennessine and 61 pm[112] for astatine.

The melting and boiling points of tennessine are not known; earlier papers predicted about 350–500 °C and 550 °C, respectively,[3] or 350–550 °C and 610 °C, respectively.[113] These values exceed those of astatine and the lighter halogens, following periodic trends. A later paper predicts the boiling point of tennessine to be 345 °C[114] (that of astatine is estimated as 309 °C,[115] 337 °C,[116] or 370 °C,[117] although experimental values of 230 °C[118] and 411 °C[112] have been reported). The density of tennessine is expected to be between 7.1 and 7.3 g/cm3.[4]

Chemical

[edit]
Skeletal model of a planar molecule with a central atom (iodine) symmetrically bonded to three (fluorine) atoms to form a big right-angled T
IF
3 has a T-shape configuration.
Skeletal model of a trigonal molecule with a central atom (tennessine) symmetrically bonded to three peripheral (fluorine) atoms
TsF
3 is predicted to have a trigonal configuration.

The known isotopes of tennessine, 293Ts and 294Ts, are too short-lived to allow for chemical experimentation at present. Nevertheless, many chemical properties of tennessine have been calculated.[119] Unlike the lighter group 17 elements, tennessine may not exhibit the chemical behavior common to the halogens.[9] For example, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine routinely accept an electron to achieve the more stable electronic configuration of a noble gas, obtaining eight electrons (octet) in their valence shells instead of seven.[120] This ability weakens as atomic weight increases going down the group; tennessine would be the least willing group 17 element to accept an electron. Of the oxidation states it is predicted to form, −1 is expected to be the least common.[3] The standard reduction potential of the Ts/Ts− couple is predicted to be −0.25 V; this value is negative, unlike for all the lighter halogens.[2]

There is another opportunity for tennessine to complete its octet—by forming a covalent bond. Like the halogens, when two tennessine atoms meet they are expected to form a Ts–Ts bond to give a diatomic molecule. Such molecules are commonly bound via single sigma bonds between the atoms; these are different from pi bonds, which are divided into two parts, each shifted in a direction perpendicular to the line between the atoms, and opposite one another rather than being located directly between the atoms they bind. Sigma bonding has been calculated to show a great antibonding character in the At2 molecule and is not as favorable energetically. Tennessine is predicted to continue the trend; a strong pi character should be seen in the bonding of Ts2.[3][121] The molecule tennessine chloride (TsCl) is predicted to go further, being bonded with a single pi bond.[121]

Aside from the unstable −1 state, three more oxidation states are predicted; +5, +3, and +1. The +1 state should be especially stable because of the destabilization of the three outermost 7p3/2 electrons, forming a stable, half-filled subshell configuration;[3] astatine shows similar effects.[122] The +3 state should be important, again due to the destabilized 7p3/2 electrons.[113] The +5 state is predicted to be uncommon because the 7p1/2 electrons are oppositely stabilized.[3] The +7 state has not been shown—even computationally—to be achievable. Because the 7s electrons are greatly stabilized, it has been hypothesized that tennessine effectively has only five valence electrons.[123]

The simplest possible tennessine compound would be the monohydride, TsH. The bonding is expected to be provided by a 7p3/2 electron of tennessine and the 1s electron of hydrogen. The non-bonding nature of the 7p1/2 spinor is because tennessine is expected not to form purely sigma or pi bonds.[124] Therefore, the destabilized (thus expanded) 7p3/2 spinor is responsible for bonding.[125] This effect lengthens the TsH molecule by 17 picometers compared with the overall length of 195 pm.[124] Since the tennessine p electron bonds are two-thirds sigma, the bond is only two-thirds as strong as it would be if tennessine featured no spin–orbit interactions.[124] The molecule thus follows the trend for halogen hydrides, showing an increase in bond length and a decrease in dissociation energy compared to AtH.[3] The molecules TlTs and NhTs may be viewed analogously, taking into account an opposite effect shown by the fact that the element's p1/2 electrons are stabilized. These two characteristics result in a relatively small dipole moment (product of difference between electric charges of atoms and displacement of the atoms) for TlTs; only 1.67 D,[r] the positive value implying that the negative charge is on the tennessine atom. For NhTs, the strength of the effects are predicted to cause a transfer of the electron from the tennessine atom to the nihonium atom, with the dipole moment value being −1.80 D.[127] The spin–orbit interaction increases the dissociation energy of the TsF molecule because it lowers the electronegativity of tennessine, causing the bond with the extremely electronegative fluorine atom to have a more ionic character.[124] Tennessine monofluoride should feature the strongest bonding of all group 17 monofluorides.[124]

VSEPR theory predicts a bent-T-shaped molecular geometry for the group 17 trifluorides. All known halogen trifluorides have this molecular geometry and have a structure of AX3E2—a central atom, denoted A, surrounded by three ligands, X, and two unshared electron pairs, E. If relativistic effects are ignored, TsF3 should follow its lighter congeners in having a bent-T-shaped molecular geometry. More sophisticated predictions show that this molecular geometry would not be energetically favored for TsF3, predicting instead a trigonal planar molecular geometry (AX3E0). This shows that VSEPR theory may not be consistent for the superheavy elements.[123] The TsF3 molecule is predicted to be significantly stabilized by spin–orbit interactions; a possible rationale may be the large difference in electronegativity between tennessine and fluorine, giving the bond a partially ionic character.[123]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tennessine

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Tennessine ( Ts) is a synthetic with 117, making it one of the heaviest elements known and placing it in group 17 of the periodic table as a member of the family.
Its most stable , ^{294}Ts, has a of approximately 51 milliseconds, and only a handful of atoms have ever been produced, rendering it highly radioactive and unstable with no known practical applications. Tennessine was first synthesized on April 16, 2010 (though experiments occurred in 2009), through the fusion of nuclei with a -249 target, a process conducted by an international team led by scientists from the (JINR) in , , in collaboration with the (LLNL), (ORNL), , and the . The target material was produced at ORNL's and processed at its Radiochemical Engineering Development Center, highlighting the critical role of U.S. facilities in enabling the experiment. This discovery was verified by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) in 2015, following independent confirmations. The element's name, tennessine, was officially approved by IUPAC on November 28, 2016, in recognition of the contributions from Tennessee-based institutions to superheavy element research, marking the first time an element was named after a U.S. state. Chemically, tennessine has the electron configuration [Rn] 5f^{14} 6d^{10} 7s^2 7p^5 and is predicted to be a solid at room temperature, but its properties deviate from those of lighter halogens due to strong relativistic effects on its valence electrons, potentially making it more noble gas-like or even partially metallic rather than highly reactive. Known isotopes include ^{293}Ts (half-life ~22 ms) and ^{294}Ts, both decaying via alpha emission; theoretical models suggest an "island of stability" for more neutron-rich isotopes of heavier superheavy elements, but the known isotopes of tennessine are highly unstable.

Overview

General characteristics

Tennessine (symbol Ts) is a synthetic with 117, positioned in group 17 (the ) and period 7 of the periodic table. As the penultimate element in the seventh row, it shares the p-block with other like and iodine, though its extreme places it far beyond stable matter. First synthesized in 2010 through fusion reactions at the in , , tennessine was officially named in 2016 by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) to honor the U.S. state of , recognizing contributions from institutions like . The element has no stable isotopes; the known ones, ^{293}Ts and ^{294}Ts, are highly radioactive and decay primarily via alpha emission, with half-lives on the order of tens to hundreds of milliseconds—^{293}Ts at approximately 14 ms and ^{294}Ts at about 80 ms. The of synthesized tennessine isotopes is approximately 294 u, tying it with (element 118) for the highest among known elements. Tennessine's production underscores advancements in , enabling the extension of the periodic table and investigations into the "" for superheavy nuclei, where enhanced stability might occur for certain isotope configurations.

Synthesis and detection

Tennessine atoms are produced through the fusion of heavy nuclei in a particle accelerator, specifically by bombarding a thin target of the radioactive isotope berkelium-249 (249Bk^{249}\mathrm{Bk}) with a high-intensity beam of calcium-48 ions (48Ca^{48}\mathrm{Ca}). This reaction occurs in facilities equipped with cyclotrons or linear accelerators capable of accelerating the calcium ions to relativistic speeds, enabling the nuclei to overcome their mutual electrostatic repulsion and fuse. The primary fusion-evaporation channel yields tennessine-294:
97249Bk+2048Ca→117294Ts+301n,^{249}_{97}\mathrm{Bk} + ^{48}_{20}\mathrm{Ca} \to ^{294}_{117}\mathrm{Ts} + 3^{1}_{0}\mathrm{n},
with variant channels producing tennessine-293 (via emission of 4 neutrons) and tennessine-295 (via 2 neutrons), though the latter has been more challenging to observe due to lower probabilities. These experiments are conducted at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Russia, in close collaboration with U.S. institutions such as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), the latter providing the berkelium targets produced via intense neutron irradiation of curium or americium. Detection of the fleeting tennessine atoms relies on advanced recoil separation and decay spectroscopy techniques. As the fusion products recoil from the target, they are separated from the intense primary beam and scattered reaction products using gas-filled recoil separators, notably the Dubna Gas-Filled Recoil Separator (DGFRS) at JINR, which exploits the differing charge-to-mass ratios and stopping behaviors in a helium-filled chamber. The separated ions are then implanted into an array of strip detectors, where their subsequent s are recorded with high temporal and energy resolution. Identification is confirmed by observing correlated chains terminating in known isotopes of lighter superheavy elements, such as moscovium-289 decaying through alpha emissions to nihonium-285, followed by further decays to roentgenium-281 and beyond, with characteristic alpha-particle energies (typically 9–11 MeV) and half-lives (tens to hundreds of milliseconds for tennessine isotopes) matching predictions and prior observations. Production yields remain exceedingly low, underscoring the rarity of successful fusions at the limits of nuclear stability. In the landmark 2010 experiment at JINR, spanning several months of beam delivery, only six tennessine atoms were detected across the observed decay channels, corresponding to fusion cross-sections on the order of 10–50 picobarns—a measure of the minuscule probability (about 1 in 10^{36} collisions) of fusion and survival against fission. Subsequent confirmation experiments in 2012–2013 yielded a few additional atoms, but overall rates are constrained by the challenges of maintaining stable, high-purity targets (with a of 314 days, necessitating rapid transport and use) and achieving sufficient beam intensities (up to 10^{13} particles per second) without degrading the delicate target foils. Relativistic effects in the high-velocity beams further complicate optimization, as they influence fusion barriers and evaporation residue survival, limiting practical production to a handful of events per extended irradiation campaign.

History

Early predictions and efforts

In the mid-20th century, nuclear physicists began theorizing the existence of superheavy elements beyond the known s, with Glenn Seaborg playing a pivotal role. In the late , Seaborg postulated an for superheavy nuclei, predicting enhanced stability for isotopes around atomic numbers Z=114 to 126 due to closed nuclear shells, potentially allowing half-lives long enough for chemical study. This hypothesis built on his earlier 1944 , which organized the heavy elements into a new f-block series and anticipated further extensions of the periodic table. By the 1970s and 1980s, theoretical models positioned element 117 (Z=117) as the heaviest analog, eka-, with a predicted ground-state of [Rn]5f146d107s27p5[ \mathrm{Rn} ] 5f^{14} 6d^{10} 7s^2 7p^5, placing it in group 17 below . Seaborg and collaborators extended the framework to transactinides and superactinides, forecasting that element 117 would exhibit -like volatility and reactivity, such as potential formation of volatile compounds, but modified by strong relativistic effects stabilizing the 7s and 7p orbitals and altering bond strengths compared to lighter . Early experimental efforts focused on developing fusion-evaporation reactions suitable for superheavies, with preparatory work in the at the (JINR) in , , establishing beams for "hot fusion" with targets to produce transactinides. International collaborations between JINR and U.S. laboratories, including (LLNL) and (ORNL), emerged in the and to refine these techniques, such as accelerating Ca-48 ions and producing rare targets like berkelium-249, though initial syntheses prioritized elements 114 and 116, temporarily skipping 117 due to target availability challenges. Proposals in the and 2000s explored alternative reactions, including heavier projectiles like titanium-50 on californium-249, but these did not yield element 117 and instead informed strategies for even heavier elements.

Discovery

The discovery of tennessine (element 117) occurred during experiments conducted from 2009 to 2010 at the Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions, (JINR) in , . An international collaboration led by of (LLNL) utilized the "hot fusion" method, bombarding a rotating target of berkelium-249 (^{249}Bk) with accelerated (^{48}Ca) ions from the U-400 . The reaction ^{249}Bk + ^{48}Ca → ^{294}Ts + 3n aimed to synthesize the most stable of tennessine, ^{294}Ts, by evaporating three neutrons during the fusion process. The experiment spanned over 2400 hours of beam time, during which evaporation residues were separated using a gas-filled recoil separator and implanted into a detector array for decay analysis. Four atoms of ^{294}Ts were produced and identified through their unique alpha decay chains, which provided definitive genetic links to known superheavy nuclei. Each atom decayed via a sequence of alpha emissions followed by spontaneous fission: ^{294}Ts → ^{290}Mc → ^{286}Nh → ^{282}Rg → ^{278}Hs → ^{274}Sg → ^{270}Rf, terminating in the spontaneous fission of rutherfordium-270 (^{270}Rf). Detection relied on precise measurements of energies and timings, with the initial from ^{294}Ts recorded at approximately 10.3 MeV, subsequent alphas in the 9–11 MeV range, and spontaneous fission events showing total endpoints around 200–250 MeV, consistent with the expected chain and ruling out random coincidences. These correlated events, observed within milliseconds to seconds, confirmed the synthesis and assignment of Z=117. The research team comprised over 30 scientists, including key contributors from JINR (), LLNL and (), (), and institutions in , , and , reflecting a multinational effort to advance synthesis. The findings were announced in a paper published in on April 9, 2010, formally claiming the observation of element 117. This achievement bridged a critical gap in the superheavy element landscape, demonstrating the viability of beams on transcurium targets for accessing neutron-rich isotopes and supporting ongoing pursuits of enhanced nuclear stability in heavier elements.

Confirmation

Following the initial observation of tennessine in 2010, follow-up experiments were conducted at the (JINR) in , , during 2012 and 2013 to strengthen the evidence for its synthesis. These runs produced additional atoms of the isotope ^{294}Ts and marked the first clear observation of the isotope ^{293}Ts through its alpha decay chain, providing improved statistical confidence in the decay sequences linking tennessine to known isotopes of lighter superheavy elements. The results from these experiments, involving a total of 14 additional tennessine atoms observed across the campaigns, were detailed in a key publication that analyzed the decay properties and cross-sections, confirming consistency with the original data while reducing uncertainties in the identification. Independent verification efforts were pursued by the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in , which attempted replication using the same ^{48}Ca + ^{249}Bk fusion reaction; however, logistical challenges, including the scarcity of berkelium-249 targets and beam time constraints, limited the scope, though the JINR data underwent rigorous and was widely accepted by the . In 2014, GSI researchers successfully observed two decay chains attributable to tennessine, further corroborating the JINR findings despite the experimental hurdles. In December 2015, a joint working party (JWP) convened by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) reviewed the cumulative experimental data from multiple JINR runs spanning 2010 to 2013, encompassing observations of approximately 15 tennessine atoms in total. The JWP evaluated the genetic links in the decay chains, production cross-sections, and consistency across datasets, ultimately confirming the discovery and assigning priority to the JINR-Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) collaboration, which included contributions from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for target production. This validation established tennessine (provisionally designated ununseptium, Uus) as element 117, paving the way for the official recognition of related superheavy elements 115 and 118 through shared decay chain evidence.

Naming

The discovery team, comprising researchers from the (JINR) in , , (ORNL), , the , and (LLNL) in the United States, formally proposed the name "tennessine" for element 117 during a video conference on March 23, 2016. The name honors the U.S. state of , acknowledging the pivotal contributions of its institutions to research, including ORNL's production of berkelium-249 targets essential for the synthesis experiments and Vanderbilt University's theoretical support in modeling atomic structures. On June 8, 2016, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) announced the proposed names for elements 113, 115, 117, and 118, including tennessine with the symbol Ts, following review by the IUPAC Division of Inorganic Chemistry. This initiated a five-month public comment period ending November 8, 2016, after which the IUPAC Bureau and Council approved the names on November 28, 2016, alongside (Nh) for 113, (Mc) for 115, and (Og) for 118. The symbol Ts was selected to align with IUPAC nomenclature rules, despite initial concerns about potential overlap with the abbreviation for the in , as it was deemed sufficiently distinct in context. The official announcement of the approved names occurred at IUPAC headquarters, with public unveilings held in at the on March 2, 2017, for , , and , and a separate event in the United States highlighting Tennessee's role. This naming followed the established tradition of honoring geographic locations significant to scientific advancements, as seen with (element 98), named after in recognition of research at the .

Predicted properties

Nuclear stability and isotopes

Tennessine (Z = 117) has two confirmed isotopes, ^{293}Ts and ^{294}Ts, both produced in the fusion-evaporation reaction ^{48}Ca + ^{249}Bk and observed through chains terminating in known events. These isotopes exhibit extremely short half-lives, characteristic of superheavy nuclei far from the predicted , with as the dominant mode due to high Q-values exceeding 10 MeV. A third isotope, ^{295}Ts, has been theoretically predicted but not yet synthesized, though it is expected to follow similar patterns with a half-life on the order of milliseconds. The isotope ^{293}Ts, with 176 neutrons, has a half-life of 22^{+15}{-7} ms and decays by alpha emission to ^{289}Mc (Z = 115) with an alpha particle energy of 11.00 \pm 0.08 MeV. Its decay chain continues as ^{289}Mc \to ^{285}Nh (E\alpha = 9.87 MeV) \to ^{281}Fl (E_\alpha = 9.60 MeV) \to ^{277}Cn (E_\alpha = 9.25 MeV) \to ^{273}Ds (E_\alpha = 9.40 MeV) \to ^{269}Hs, followed by spontaneous fission. This chain was observed in four events during the initial synthesis experiments. The production cross-section for ^{293}Ts via the 4n evaporation channel is approximately 0.7 pb at a beam energy of 252 MeV. The most stable known isotope, ^{294}Ts (N = 177), has a half-life of 51^{+38}{-16} ms and undergoes alpha decay to ^{290}Mc with E\alpha = 10.30 \pm 0.10 MeV. The subsequent chain is ^{290}Mc \to ^{286}Nh (E_\alpha = 9.64 MeV) \to ^{282}Fl (E_\alpha = 9.53 MeV) \to ^{278}Cn (E_\alpha = 9.22 MeV) \to ^{274}Ds (E_\alpha = 9.45 MeV) \to ^{270}Hs \to ^{266}Sg, ending in spontaneous fission after about 16 seconds total. This isotope was identified in six long decay chains and seven shorter ones in confirmation experiments, with a production cross-section of about 1.1 pb for the 3n channel at optimal energies around 254 MeV. Yields are low, typically 1-2 atoms per experiment due to the minuscule cross-sections (on the order of picobarns) and the challenges of accelerating calcium-48 beams on berkelium targets. Nuclear stability in tennessine is governed by shell effects in the superheavy region, where proton numbers near Z = 114 and neutron numbers approaching N = 184 are expected to enhance binding energies and extend half-lives in an "island of stability." However, tennessine's isotopes lie just beyond Z = 114 with N ≈ 176-177, outside the core of this island, resulting in reduced shell stabilization and dominance of alpha decay over spontaneous fission. Theoretical calculations using the Woods-Saxon potential and Skyrme-Hartree-Fock models predict Q-values for alpha decay of ^{294}Ts around 11.2 MeV, consistent with observed energies, and fission barriers of 6-8 MeV, favoring alpha emission. These models, calibrated on lighter superheavies, explain the observed short half-lives by the weakening of the N = 184 neutron shell gap due to deformation effects. Predictions suggest that more neutron-rich isotopes, such as ^{298}Ts (N = 181) or ^{299}Ts (N = 182), closer to N = 184, could exhibit significantly longer half-lives—up to several seconds—primarily through enhanced resistance from stronger shell closures, though might compete. Synthesis of these would require reactions like ^{50} + ^{249}Bk or ^{48}Ca + ^{251}Bk, but cross-sections are estimated below 0.1 pb, posing experimental challenges. Mass formulas like the Weizsäcker-Skyrme model forecast Q_\alpha ≈ 10.5-11 MeV and fission barriers rising to 10 MeV near N = 184, potentially stabilizing such isotopes against immediate decay.
IsotopeHalf-lifeDecay modeDaughterE_\alpha (MeV)Production cross-section (pb)
^{293}Ts22 ms\alpha^{289}Mc11.00~0.7 (4n channel)
^{294}Ts51 ms\alpha^{290}Mc10.30~1.1 (3n channel)
^{295}Ts~18 ms (predicted)\alpha^{291}Mc~10.4 (predicted)<0.5 (2n channel, estimated)

Atomic structure and physical characteristics

Tennessine, with atomic number 117, is expected to have the ground-state electron configuration [Rn] 5f^{14} 6d^{10} 7s^2 7p^5, consistent with its position in group 17 of the periodic table. However, strong relativistic effects arising from the high nuclear charge cause significant contraction and stabilization of the inner electron shells, potentially promoting one 7p electron to the 7d subshell in certain excited states or influencing bonding behavior, leading to partial metalloid characteristics rather than purely halogen-like properties. These effects are quantified through relativistic quantum chemistry methods, such as the Dirac-Fock approach, which accounts for spin-orbit coupling and velocity-dependent terms in the Dirac equation, revealing deviations from the trends observed in lighter halogens like iodine and astatine. The predicted atomic radius of tennessine is approximately 138 pm, reflecting a contraction compared to lighter group 17 elements due to the and enhanced relativistic influences on the 7p orbitals. This radius is similar in scale to that of (element 116), underscoring the transition toward more compact structures in superheavy elements. The first is estimated at 743 kJ/mol, higher than expected for a typical because of the relativistic stabilization of the 7s and 7p_{1/2} electrons, which makes electron removal more energetically demanding. As a produced only in trace amounts, tennessine has not been observed in bulk form, precluding direct measurement of its physical characteristics. Theoretical predictions indicate it would likely exist as a solid at , with a of about 7.2 g/cm³, influenced by its compact atomic structure and potential . The estimated is around 623 and the approximately 883 , suggesting relatively low volatility akin to heavier but with possible deviations due to relativistic enhancement of metallic traits. Its color and appearance remain speculative, potentially ranging from metallic luster to a noble-gas-like opacity, though the isolation of single atoms prevents empirical verification.

Chemical behavior

Tennessine is expected to exhibit halogen-like reactivity as the heaviest member of group 17, but relativistic effects significantly subdue its chemical behavior, making it a weak compared to lighter like or iodine. The stabilization of the 7p_{1/2} orbital due to relativistic contraction reduces the availability of the valence s, leading to lower and diminished tendency to gain an or form strong bonds. Predicted Pauling electronegativity for tennessine is approximately 2.3, lower than iodine's 2.66, further deviating from the typical group 17 trend of decreasing electronegativity down the group. Theoretical calculations suggest tennessine could form compounds such as TsF, which is predicted to be ionic due to the large size and low of tennessine, contrasting with the more covalent nature of lighter fluorides. TsCl is expected to have partial covalent character, while TsH would likely be a with weaker bonding influenced by relativistic effects. The Ts–F bond strength is estimated at around 368 kJ/mol, notably weaker than the I–F bond (approximately 450 kJ/mol), reflecting the reduced reactivity. Volatility of tennessine compounds is anticipated to increase down the group, similar to other , potentially allowing gas-phase studies despite the element's short . In comparison to , tennessine is predicted to be even more inert, with the possibility of forming a Ts_2 dimer that exhibits semiconductor-like behavior in bulk form due to band structure modifications from relativistic effects. No experimental chemical data exist for tennessine owing to its extreme instability and limited production (only a few atoms synthesized), but theoretical studies on gas-phase interactions, such as adsorption on surfaces, support future single-atom chemistry experiments to probe its reactivity. These predictions highlight how relativistic effects dominate, potentially placing tennessine at the boundary between and noble-gas-like elements in chemical behavior.

References

  1. https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/117/tennessine
  2. https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainssuperheavy-elements
  3. https://www.thoughtco.com/element-117-facts-ununseptium-or-uus-3880071
  4. https://iupac.org/iupac-is-naming-the-four-new-elements-nihonium-moscovium-tennessine-and-oganesson/
  5. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.142502
  6. https://www.ornl.gov/news/tennessine-acknowledges-state-institutions-roles-elements-discovery
  7. https://str.llnl.gov/past-issues/december-2016/getting-end-matter
  8. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.054306
  9. https://www.ornl.gov/content/element-117-timeline
  10. https://iupac.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/pac20180918_v20181112.pdf
  11. https://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/115
  12. https://www2.lbl.gov/Publications/Seaborg/hits.htm
  13. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ed046p626
  14. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2019.0535
  15. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/2315603
  16. https://www.llnl.gov/article/40011/element-117-discovered-laboratory-one-step-closer-being-named
  17. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.142502
  18. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/international-team-discovers-element-117
  19. https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/online/14746/Element-117-discovered
  20. https://www.llnl.gov/article/35236/heavy-journey-toward-island-stability
  21. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.87.054621
  22. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.172501
  23. https://iupac.org/recommendation/names-and-symbols-of-the-elements-with-atomic-numbers-113-115-117-and-118/
  24. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/691381
  25. https://www.euchems.eu/newsletters/names-for-new-elements-113-115-117-and-118-now-approved/
  26. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161202123622.htm
  27. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/iupac-confirms-names-for-four-new-elements/2500071.article
  28. https://www.ornl.gov/blog/international-association-approves-element-117-tennessine
  29. https://periodic.lanl.gov/117.shtml
  30. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/adab2e
  31. https://www.webelements.com/tennessine/physics.html
  32. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2019.0305
  33. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2024.1474820/full
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375947415001037
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009261417310242
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.