INORGANIC CHEMISTRY
DIVISION
COMMISSION
ON NOMENCLATURE OF INORGANIC CHEMISTRY
Names And Symbols Of Transfermium
Elements
(IUPAC recommendations 1997)
Abstract:
Revised recommendations for the names and symbols of the transfermium
elements (atomic numbers 101 - 109)
are presented along with the reasons for proposing them.
IUPAC
Atomic Weights
World Wide Web version prepared by G. P. Moss
[full text
- pdf 164 kB]
INTRODUCTION
The recommendations (ref. 1) of the Commission
on Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (CNIC) on the nomenclature of
the transfermium elements (101-109, inclusive) were considered by the
IUPAC Bureau at Guildford (UK) in September 1995. As a result of the
various criticisms of the recommendations and the way that they had
been processed, the Bureau decided to adopt the recommendations as provisional
and to circulate them to national/regional nomenclature centres in the
normal way, with notices to be published in national/regional chemistry
journals and magazines, requesting submission of comments to CNIC. In
particular, the National Adhering Organizations (NAOs) were invited
to express their views concerning the extant proposals for the names
of these elements and the principles and traditions used to derive them.
The response from the general chemical community was small, and the
bulk of the replies came from nuclear scientists.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission reconsidered all the names at
a meeting in Chestertown, Maryland (USA) in August, 1996. Although it
is accepted that the discoverers of a new element have the right to
propose a name and that such suggestions must receive serious consideration,
it is also accepted that the final decision in such matters should be
taken by CNIC, and ultimately confirmed by the Interdivisional Committee
on Nomenclature and Symbols, Bureau, and Council of the Union. At Chestertown,
CNIC reiterated its acceptance of the conclusions of the Transfermium
Working Group (TWG) as a basis for taking decisions (refs. 2-4). However,
it also decided to modify its decision that the name of a living scientist
should not be used as the basis for an element name. The responses from
the NAOs and the chemical community showed quite clearly that chemists
in general do not regard this as an important issue and many thought
it irrelevant. The Commission agreed, in keeping with tradition, to
the use of appropriate names derived from (a) mythical concepts or characters,
(b) place, area or country, (c) a property of the element, and (d) a
scientist.
After some discussion CNIC agreed that elements
101, 102 and 103 should retain their commonly accepted names mendelevium,
nobelium, and lawrencium. This is despite the fact that the original
Swedish claim to have prepared element 102 was subsequently shown to
have been in error by the Dubna laboratory, which finally achieved an
undisputed synthesis. The discovery of element 106 by the Berkeley laboratory
is uncontested and the name proposed by the discoverers, seaborgium,
was accepted. The discoveries of elements 107 jointly by the Darmstadt
and Dubna laboratories), and of 108 and 109 (by the Darmstadt laboratories)
are also uncontested. The discoverers wished to call these nielsbohrium,
hassium, and meitnerium, respectively, and the Commission accepted the
last two. However, the proposal for 107 was the subject of vigorous
debate. The name nielsbohrium is long and includes the first name of
Niels Bohr as well as his family name. Such an element name is without
precedent. Finally it was decided to refer the matter to the Danish
NAO. Its preference for bohrium rather than nielsbohrium was ultimately
accepted.
The discoveries of elements 104 and 105 are contested
by Dubna and Berkeley. Both laboratories appear to have made significant
contributions, but what has clearly emerged from the submissions, including
those from Berkeley and from Darmstadt, is that the Dubna laboratory
has played a key role in developing the experimental strategies used
in synthesizing several transfermium elements. The Commission recommended
that element 105 should be named dubnium in its honour. The Berkeley
laboratory has already been similarly recognized on more than one occasion.
Finally, the Commission accepted the name rutherfordium for element
104, to honour the New Zealand nuclear physicist, Ernest Rutherford.
The agreed
list of recommendations is as follows:
Element
|
Name
|
Symbol
|
101
|
mendelevium
|
Md
|
102
|
nobelium
|
No
|
103
|
lawrencium
|
Lr
|
104
|
rutherfordium
|
Rf
|
105
|
dubnium
|
Db
|
106
|
seaborgium
|
Sg
|
107
|
bohrium
|
Bh
|
108
|
hassium
|
Hs
|
109
|
meitnerium
|
Mt
|
The Commission benefited from the presence of
a representative of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
(IUPAP) at its meeting in Chestertown. It is to be hoped that such a
person will always be available if needed, and the Commission believes
that it will be important to revive a joint IUPAC-IUPAP Working Group
to confirm the discovery of new elements and to adjudicate on competing
claims for priority of discovery. The Commission hopes that the present
collection of names will be accepted as a fair compromise between the
various claims and suggestions. It recognizes important experimental
and theoretical contributions to the discovery of new elements and also
the international nature of our science.
REFERENCES
1 Pure Appl. Chem. 66, 2419-2421 (1994)
2 Pure Appl. Chem. 63, 879-886 (1991)
3 Pure Appl. Chem. 65, 1757-1763 (1993)
4 Pure Appl. Chem. 65, 1764-1814 (1993)
[full
text - pdf 164 kB]