Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Nihonium is a synthetic chemical element with symbol Nh and atomic number 113. It is extremely radioactive; its most stable known isotope, nihonium-286, has a half-life of about ten seconds. In the periodic table, nihonium is a p-block transactinide element. It is a member of the 7th period and is placed in group 13 on the periodic table, although it has not been confirmed to behave as the heavier homologue to thallium in that group.

Nihonium,  113Nh
General properties
Pronunciation /nɪˈhniəm/ (nih-HOH-nee-əm)
Mass number 286 (most stable isotope)
Nihonium 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
Tl

Nh

(Uhs)
coperniciumnihoniumflerovium
Atomic number (Z) 113
Group group 13 (boron group)
Period period 7
Element category   unknown chemical properties, but probably a post-transition metal
Block p-block
Electron configuration [Rn] 5f14 6d10 7s2 7p1 (predicted)[1]
Electrons per shell
2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 3 (predicted)
Physical properties
Phase (at STP) solid (predicted)[1][2][3]
Melting point 700 K ​(430 °C, ​810 °F) (predicted)[1]
Boiling point 1430 K ​(1130 °C, ​2070 °F) (predicted)[1][4]
Density (near r.t.) 16 g/cm3 (predicted)[4]
Heat of fusion 7.61 kJ/mol (extrapolated)[3]
Heat of vaporization 130 kJ/mol (predicted)[2][4]
Atomic properties
Oxidation states −1, 1, 3, 5 (predicted)[1][4][5]
Ionization energies
  • 1st: 704.9 kJ/mol (predicted)[1]
  • 2nd: 2238.5 kJ/mol (predicted)[4]
  • 3rd: 3203.3 kJ/mol (predicted)[4]
  • (more)
Atomic radius empirical: 170 pm (predicted)[1]
Covalent radius 172–180 pm (extrapolated)[3]
Miscellanea
CAS Number 54084-70-7
History
Naming After Japan (Nihon in Japanese)
Discovery RIKEN (2004)
Main isotopes of nihonium
Iso­tope Abun­dance Half-life (t1/2) Decay mode Pro­duct
290Nh[6] syn 2 s? α 286Rg
287Nh[7] syn 5.5 s? α 283Rg
286Nh syn 9.5 s α 282Rg
285Nh syn 4.2 s α 281Rg
284Nh syn 0.91 s α 280Rg
EC 284Cn
283Nh syn 75 ms α 279Rg
282Nh syn 73 ms α 278Rg
278Nh syn 1.4 ms α 274Rg
| references | in Wikidata

Nihonium was first reported to have been created in 2003 by a Russian–American collaboration at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Russia, and in 2004 by a team of Japanese scientists at RIKEN. The confirmation of their claims that took place in the ensuing years was an international endeavour, involving independent teams of scientists working in the United States, Germany, Sweden, and China as well as the original claimants working in Russia and Japan. In December 2015, the IUPACIUPAP Joint Working Party recognized the element and assigned the priority of the discovery and naming rights for the element to RIKEN, as it judged that the RIKEN team had persuasively demonstrated that their observations originated from element 113 while the JINR had not. The RIKEN team suggested the name nihonium in March 2016, which was approved and made official that November. The name comes from the common Japanese name for Japan (日本, nihon).

Nihonium is expected to be within the "island of stability", a concept which explains why some superheavy nuclides are anomalously long-lived, compared to the trend of rapidly decreasing stability after bismuth. Experiments support these theoretical predictions, with the half-lives of the confirmed nihonium isotopes increasing from milliseconds to seconds as neutrons are added and the island is approached. Nihonium is calculated to have some similar properties to its lighter homologues, boron, aluminium, gallium, indium, and thallium, and behave as a post-transition metal like the heavier four, although it should also show several major differences from them. For example, nihonium should be more stable in the +1 oxidation state than the +3 state, like thallium, but in the +1 state it should be more like silver than thallium in its propensity to form coordination complexes. Preliminary experiments in 2017 have shown that elemental nihonium is not very volatile, though its chemistry largely remains unexplored.

Contents

HistoryEdit

Early indicationsEdit

The syntheses of elements 107 through 112 inclusive were conducted at the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI) in Darmstadt, Hesse, Germany from 1981 to 1996. These elements were made by cold fusion reactions (bombarding targets made of thallium, lead, and bismuth, which are around the closed shell of 82 protons, with heavy ions of period 4 elements), creating fused nuclei with low excitation energies due to the magic shells of the targets, and significantly increasing the yield of superheavy elements. The technique of cold fusion had been pioneered by Yuri Oganessian and his team in 1974 at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union. However, the yields from cold fusion reactions were found to decrease significantly with increasing atomic number. Furthermore, the resulting nuclei were severely neutron-deficient and did not live very long. The GSI team attempted to similarly synthesise element 113 via cold fusion in 1998 and 2003, bombarding bismuth-209 with zinc-70, but were unsuccessful both times.[8][9]

Faced with this problem, Oganessian and his team at the JINR turned their renewed attention to the older hot fusion technique, in which heavy actinide targets were reacted with lighter ions. Calcium-48 was suggested as an ideal projectile, because it is very neutron-rich for a light element (combined with the already neutron-rich actinides) and would minimise the inevitable neutron deficiencies of the nuclides produced. Being doubly magic, it would also confer similar benefits in stability to the fused nuclei as the lead and bismuth targets from cold fusion had. In collaboration with the team at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the United States, they made an attempt on element 114 (which was predicted to be a magic number, closing a proton shell, and hence more stable than element 113). It would nevertheless transpire that this first experiment aimed at element 114 may actually have been the first observation of an isotope of element 113.[6][8]

In 1998, the JINR–Livermore collaboration started their attempt on element 114, bombarding a target of plutonium-244 with accelerated ions of calcium-48:[8]

244
94
Pu
+ 48
20
Ca
292114* → 290114 + 2 1
0

n
+ e290113 + νe

A single atom was observed and was assigned to the isotope 289114: the results were published in January 1999.[10] Despite numerous repetitions of this reaction, an isotope with these decay properties was never found again and hence the exact identity of this activity is unknown.[11] A 2016 paper considered that the most likely assignment of this 1998 chain is to the 2n channel leading to 290114 and electron capture to 290113, which fits well with the systematics and trends across the isotopes of element 114. This would then have been the first report of a decay chain from an isotope of element 113, but it was not recognised as such at the time, and the assignment is still uncertain in the absence of confirmation.[6] A similar long-lived activity observed by the JINR team in March 1999 in the 242Pu+48Ca reaction may similarly be due to the electron-capture daughter of 287114, 287113, but this assignment is likewise tentative.[7]

JINR–Livermore collaborationEdit

The now-confirmed discovery of element 114 was made in June 1999 when the JINR team repeated the first 244Pu+48Ca reaction from 1998;[12][13] following this, the JINR team used the same hot fusion technique to synthesise elements 116 and 118 in 2000 and 2002 respectively via the 248Cm+48Ca and 249Cf+48Ca reactions. They then turned their attention to the missing odd-numbered elements, as the odd protons and possibly neutrons would hinder decay by spontaneous fission and result in longer decay chains.[8][14]

The first report of element 113 was in August 2003, when it was identified as an alpha decay product of element 115. Element 115 had been produced by bombarding a target of americium-243 with calcium-48 projectiles. The JINR–Livermore collaboration published its results on February 1, 2004:[14][15]

243
95
Am
+ 48
20
Ca
291115* → 288115 + 3 1
0
n
284113 +
α
243
95
Am
+ 48
20
Ca
291115* → 287115 + 4 1
0
n
283113 +
α

Four further alpha decays were observed, ending with the spontaneous fission of isotopes of element 105, dubnium.[14] Later, Mark Stoyer, one of the Livermore scientists, recalled:[8]

I was on sabbatical, ... and I remember thinking to myself "Why are we rushing, why are we doing this so fast? There isn't anybody else doing this experiment." About six months later, the Japanese results came out.[8]

— Mark Stoyer

RIKENEdit

While the JINR–Livermore collaboration had been studying fusion reactions with 48Ca, a team of Japanese scientists at the RIKEN Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science in Wakō, Saitama Prefecture, Japan, led by Kōsuke Morita had been studying cold fusion reactions. Morita had previously studied the synthesis of superheavy elements at the JINR before starting his own team at RIKEN. In 2001, his team confirmed the GSI's discoveries of elements 108, 110, 111, and 112. They then chose to make a new attempt on element 113, using the same 209Bi+70Zn reaction that the GSI had unsuccessfully attempted in 1998. Despite the much lower yield expected than for the JINR's hot fusion technique with calcium-48, the RIKEN team chose to use cold fusion as the synthesized isotopes would alpha decay to known daughter nuclides and make the discovery much more certain, and would not necessitate the use of radioactive targets.[16] In particular, the isotope 278113 expected to be produced in this reaction would decay to the known 266Bh, which had been synthesised in 2000 by a team at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in Berkeley, California, United States.[17]

The bombardment of 209Bi with 70Zn at RIKEN began in September 2003.[18] The team detected a single atom of 278113 in July 2004 and published their results that September:[19]

209
83
Bi
+ 70
30
Zn
279113* → 278113 + 1
0
n

The RIKEN team observed four alpha decays from 278113, creating a decay chain passing through 274Rg, 270Mt, and 266Bh before terminating with the spontaneous fission of 262Db.[19] The decay data they observed for the alpha decay of 266Bh matched the 2000 data, thus lending support for their claim. However, spontaneous fission of its daughter 262Db had not been previously known; the American team had observed only alpha decay from this nuclide.[17]

Road to confirmationEdit

When a new element is claimed to have been discovered, the Joint Working Party (JWP) of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) meets to examine the claims according to their criteria for the discovery of a new element, and decides scientific priority and concomitant naming rights for the elements. According to the JWP criteria, a discovery must demonstrate that the element has an atomic number different from all previously observed values. It should also preferably be repeated by other laboratories, although this requirement has been waived in cases where the data is of very high quality. Such a demonstration must establish properties, either physical or chemical, of the new element and establish that they are those of a previously unknown element. The main techniques used to demonstrate atomic number are cross-reactions (creating claimed nuclides as parents or daughters of other nuclides produced by a different reaction) and anchoring decay chains to known daughter nuclides: both convincingly fix the atomic number of the claimed new nuclide. For the JWP, priority in confirmation takes precedence over the date of the original claim. Both teams set out to confirm their results by these methods.[20]

 
Summary of decay chains passing through isotopes of element 113, ending at mendelevium (element 101) or earlier. Nuclides with bold borders have been accepted as confirmed.

2004–2008Edit

In June 2004 and again in December 2005, the JINR–Livermore collaboration strengthened their claim for the discovery of nihonium by conducting chemical experiments on 268Db, the final decay product of 288115. This was valuable as none of the nuclides in this decay chain were previously known, so that their claim was not supported by any previously obtained experimental data, and chemical experimentation would strengthen the case for their claim, since the chemistry of dubnium is known. 268Db was successfully identified by extracting the final decay products, measuring spontaneous fission (SF) activities and using chemical identification techniques to confirm that they behave like a group 5 element (as dubnium is known to be in group 5 of the periodic table).[1][21] Both the half-life and decay mode were confirmed for the proposed 268Db which lends support to the assignment of the parent and daughter nuclei to elements 115 and 113 respectively.[21][22] Further experiments at the JINR in 2005 fully confirmed the decay data for elements 115 and 113.[17]

In November and December 2004, the RIKEN team studied the 205Tl+70Zn reaction, retaining the zinc beam and impinging it on a thallium rather than a bismuth target, in an effort to directly produce 274Rg in a cross-bombardment as it is the immediate daughter of 278113. However, the thallium target was weak compared to the more commonly used lead and bismuth targets, and it deteriorated significantly and became non-uniform in thickness; hence no atoms of 274Rg were observed. The reasons for this weakness are still unknown, given that thallium has a higher melting point than bismuth.[23] The RIKEN team then repeated the original 209Bi+70Zn reaction and produced a second atom of 278113 in April 2005, with a decay chain that again terminated with the spontaneous fission of 262Db. The decay data were slightly different from the first chain, perhaps due to either the formation of metastable states along the chain or an alpha particle escaping from the detector before depositing its full energy.[17]

In 2006, a team at the Heavy Ion Research Facility in Lanzhou, Gansu Province, China investigated the 243Am+26Mg reaction, producing four atoms of 266Bh. All four chains started with an alpha decay to 262Db; three chains ended there with spontaneous fission, as in the 278113 chains observed at RIKEN, while the remaining one continued via another alpha decay to 258Lr, as in the 266Bh chains observed at LBNL.[20]

In June 2006, the JINR–Livermore collaboration claimed to have synthesised a new isotope of element 113 directly by bombarding a neptunium-237 target with accelerated calcium-48 nuclei:

237
93
Np
+ 48
20
Ca
285113* → 282113 + 3 1
0
n

Two atoms of 282113 were detected. The aim of this experiment had been to synthesise the isotopes 281113 and 282113 that would fill in the gap between isotopes produced via hot fusion (283113 and 284113) and cold fusion (278113). After five alpha decays, these nuclides would reach known isotopes of lawrencium, assuming that the decay chains were not interrupted prematurely by spontaneous fission. The first decay chain terminated with spontaneous fission after four alpha decays, presumably originating from 266Db or its electron-capture daughter 266Rf. Spontaneous fission was not observed in the second chain even after four alpha decays. A fifth alpha decay in each chain could have been missed, since 266Db can theoretically undergo alpha decay, in which case the first decay chain would have ended at the known 262Lr or 262No and the second might have continued to the known long-lived 258Md, which has a half-life of 51.5 days, longer than the duration of the experiment itself: this would explain the lack of a spontaneous fission event in this chain. However, in the absence of direct detection of the long-lived alpha decays, these interpretations remain unconfirmed, and there is still no known link between any superheavy nuclides produced by hot fusion and the well-known main body of the chart of nuclides.[24]

2009–2015Edit

The JWP published its third report on elements 113–116 and 118 in 2011. It recognised the JINR–Livermore collaboration as having discovered elements 114 and 116, but did not accept either team's claim to element 113 and did not accept the JINR–Livermore claims to elements 115 and 118. While the JINR–Livermore claim to elements 115 and 113 had been founded on chemical identification of their daughter dubnium, the JWP objected that current theory could not distinguish between group 4 and group 5 elements by their chemical properties with sufficient confidence to allow this assignment.[17] Furthermore, the decay properties of all the nuclei in the decay chain of element 115 had not been previously characterized before the JINR experiments, a situation which the JWP generally considers "troublesome, but not necessarily exclusive", and with the small number of atoms produced with neither known daughters nor cross-reactions the JWP considered that their criteria had not been fulfilled.[17] The JWP did not accept the RIKEN team's claim either due to inconsistencies in the decay data, the small number of atoms of element 113 produced, and the lack of unambiguous anchors to known isotopes.[17]

In early 2009, the RIKEN team synthesised the decay product 266Bh directly in the 248Cm+23Na reaction in order to establish its link with 278113 as a cross-bombardment. They also established the branched decay of 262Db, which sometimes underwent spontaneous fission and sometimes underwent the previously known alpha decay to 258Lr.[25][26]

In late 2009, the JINR–Livermore collaboration, now joined by scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Vanderbilt University, studied the 249Bk+48Ca reaction in an effort to produce element 117, which would decay to elements 115 and 113 and hence bolster their claims in a cross-reaction.[8] The scientists at ORNL and Vanderbilt University had been instrumental in procuring the rare and highly radioactive berkelium target necessary to complete the JINR's calcium-48 campaign to synthesise the heaviest elements on the periodic table.[8] Two isotopes of element 117 were synthesised, decaying to element 115 and then element 113:[27]

249
97
Bk
+ 48
20
Ca
297117* → 294117 + 3 1
0
n
290115 + α → 286113 + α
249
97
Bk
+ 48
20
Ca
297117* → 293117 + 4 1
0
n
289115 + α → 285113 + α

However, since the new isotopes 285113 and 286113 produced did not overlap with the previously claimed 282113, 283113, and 284113, this reaction could not be used as a cross-bombardment to confirm either the 2003 or the 2006 claims.[20]

In March 2010, the RIKEN team once again attempted to synthesise 274Rg directly through the 205Tl+70Zn reaction with upgraded equipment; they again met failure and abandoned this cross-bombardment route.[23]

After 450 more days of irradiation of bismuth with zinc projectiles, production and identification of another 278113 atom occurred at RIKEN in August 2012.[28][29] In this case, a series of six alpha decays was observed, leading down to an isotope of mendelevium:

278113 → 274
111
Rg
+
α
270
109
Mt
+
α
266
107
Bh
+
α
262
105
Db
+
α
258
103
Lr
+
α
254
101
Md
+
α

This decay chain differed from the previous observations at RIKEN mainly in the decay mode of 262Db, which was previously observed to undergo spontaneous fission, but in this case instead alpha decayed; the alpha decay of 262Db to 258Lr is well-known. The scientists on this team calculated the probability of accidental coincidence to be 10−28, or totally negligible.[28] The resulting 254Md atom then underwent electron capture to 254Fm, which itself finally underwent the seventh alpha decay in the chain to the long-lived 250Cf, which has a half-life of around thirteen years.[30]

The 249Bk+48Ca experiment was repeated at the JINR in 2012 and 2013 with consistent results, and again at the GSI in 2014.[20] In August 2013, a team of researchers at Lund University and at the GSI announced that they had repeated the 2003 243Am+48Ca experiment, confirming the findings of the JINR–Livermore collaboration.[31][32] The same year, the 2003 experiment had been repeated at JINR, now additionally also creating the isotope 289115 that could serve as a cross-bombardment for confirming their discovery of the element 117 isotope 293117, as well as its daughter 285113 as part of its decay chain.[20] Further confirmation was published by the team at the LBNL in 2015.[33]

Approval of discoveriesEdit

In December 2015, the conclusions of the fourth JWP report were published by IUPAC in a press release, in which element 113 was awarded to RIKEN, while elements 115, 117, and 118 were awarded to the collaborations involving the JINR.[34] A joint 2016 announcement by IUPAC and IUPAP had been scheduled to coincide with the publication of the JWP reports, but IUPAC unilaterally decided on an early release because the news of RIKEN being awarded credit for element 113 had been leaked to Japanese newspapers.[35] For the first time in history, a team of Asian physicists would name a new element.[34]

Regarding the awarding of element 113 to RIKEN, the JINR responded:[36]

To us, this is somewhat unexpected decision. Moreover, in the IUPAC practice, there are enough precedents of acknowledging “joint” priority (examples can be the cases with elements 103, 104 and 105 with authorship of discovery shared between JINR (Dubna) and Berkeley (USA). We are glad for our colleagues from RIKEN especially, because the leader of the work, Prof. K.Morita is to a certain extent the trainee of Dubna; here, in JINR he for quite a long time learned the basics of synthesis of new elements. However, the method of synthesizing the superheavy elements, chosen by RIKEN researchers is completely exhausted; moreover, today they plan future experiments using only the method proposed in Dubna.

We respect the decision of IUPAC. However, our position regarding the decision on element 113 will be determined only after the reports of the IUPAC-IUPAP JWP are officially published and studied in detail.[36]

The scientists on the RIKEN team agreed that their experiment had practically exhausted cold fusion as a method for making new elements, due to the extremely low cross section of the reaction (probability of fusion): the value of 20 femtobarns obtained for the 209Bi+70Zn reaction yielding 278113 is the lowest among all superheavy fusion reactions that have been successful.[8] Kouji Morimoto from the RIKEN team commented that "further new element search using cold fusion is hopeless because of its small production cross-section", and future experiments at RIKEN are planned using actinide targets and heavy ions.[23]

The full JWP reports were published in January 2016 in two parts, the first dealing with elements 113, 115, and 117, and the second dealing with element 118. The fourth JWP recognized the element and assigned the priority of the discovery to RIKEN, noting that while the individual decay energies of each nuclide in the decay chain of 278113 were inconsistent, their sum was now confirmed to be consistent, strongly suggesting that the initial and final states in 278113 and its daughter 262Db were the same for all three events. Furthermore, the decay of 262Db to 258Lr and 254Md was previously known, firmly anchoring the decay chain of 278113 to known regions of the chart of nuclides. The fourth JWP considered that the JINR–Livermore collaboration did not meet the discovery criteria as they had not convincingly determined the atomic numbers of their nuclides through cross-bombardments, which were necessary since their decay chains were not anchored to previously known nuclides; furthermore, they considered that the third JWP's concerns over their chemical identification of the dubnium daughter had not been adequately addressed. In any case, the confirmation of the JINR–Livermore results on elements 115 and 113 had come the year after RIKEN had confirmed its results.[23] While the JINR–Livermore–ORNL–Vanderbilt collaboration was approved by the JWP as the discovery of elements 115 and 117, it and its confirmation had also postdated that of the RIKEN discovery of element 113.[37][20]

After the publication of the JWP reports, Sergey Dimitriev, the lab director of the Flerov lab at JINR where the discoveries were made, remarked:[8]

Of six new elements, IUPAC recognises five for our institute. We're quite happy – our Japanese colleagues spent 10 years for the synthesis of three nuclei. Professor Morita is our good friend, he spent many years in our laboratory. He's our pupil, so it's not a problem for us![8]

— Sergey Dimitriev

The sum argument advanced by the JWP in the approval of the discovery of element 113 was later criticized in a May 2016 study from Lund University and the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research, as it is only valid if no gamma decay or internal conversion takes place along the decay chain, which is not likely for odd nuclei, and the uncertainty of the alpha decay energies measured in the 278113 decay chain was not small enough to rule out this possibility. If this is the case, similarity in lifetimes of intermediate daughters becomes a meaningless argument, as different isomers of the same nuclide can have wildly different half-lives: for example, the ground state of 180Ta has a half-life of mere hours, but an excited state 180mTa has never been observed to decay. However, although this study found reason to doubt and criticize the IUPAC approval of the discoveries of elements 115 and 117, the data from RIKEN for element 113 was found to be congruent, and the data from the JINR team for elements 115 and 113 to probably be so, thus necessitating no criticism of the IUPAC approval of the discovery of element 113.[38][39] In any case, two members of the JINR team published a journal article rebutting these criticisms against the congruence of their data on elements 113, 115, and 117 in June 2017.[40]

NamingEdit

Using Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, nihonium should be known as eka-thallium. In 1979 IUPAC published recommendations according to which the element was to be called ununtrium (with the corresponding symbol of Uut),[41] a systematic element name as a placeholder, until the discovery of the element is confirmed and a name is decided on. Although widely used in the chemical community on all levels, from chemistry classrooms to advanced textbooks, the recommendations were mostly ignored among scientists in the field, who called it "element 113", with the symbol of E113, (113), or even simply 113.[1] Before the JWP recognition of their priority, the Japanese team had unofficially suggested various names: japonium, symbol Jp, after their home country;[42] nishinanium, symbol Nh, after Japanese physicist Yoshio Nishina, the "founding father of modern physics research in Japan";[43] and rikenium, symbol Rk, after the team itself.[42] In March 2016, Morita proposed the name "nihonium" to IUPAC, after one of the two Japanese pronunciations for the name of Japan: Japan (日本, nihon). Morita also intended to reference Japanese chemist Masataka Ogawa's 1908 discovery of rhenium, which he named "nipponium" with symbol Np:[37] the name "nipponium" could not be reused for a new element, and its symbol Np had since been used for neptunium. (Neptunium had also been first produced at RIKEN by Nishina and Kenjiro Kimura in 1940, who nevertheless did not get naming rights because they could not chemically separate and identify their discovery.)[44][45]

The former president of IUPAP, Cecilia Jarlskog, complained at the Nobel Symposium on Superheavy Elements in Bäckaskog Castle, Kristianstad Municipality, Sweden in June 2016 about the lack of openness involved in the process of approving the new elements, and stated that she believed that the JWP's work was flawed and should be redone by a new JWP. However, after a survey of many physicists, it was determined that while many physicists felt that some aspects of the JWP report merited concern, including the awarding of element 113 to RIKEN and the acceptance of the discoveries of elements 115 and 117 on the grounds of cross-reactions, the consensus was that the conclusions would hold up if the work was redone, and hence the new president, Bruce McKellar, ruled that the proposed names should be released in a joint IUPAP–IUPAC press release.[35] Thus, IUPAC and IUPAP publicised the proposal of nihonium that June,[46] and set a five-month term to collect comments, after which the final name would be formally established at a conference.[47][48] The name was officially approved in November 2016.[49] The naming ceremony for the new element was held in Tokyo, Japan in March 2017, with Naruhito, Crown Prince of Japan in attendance.[50]

IsotopesEdit

Nihonium has no stable or naturally occurring isotopes. Several radioactive isotopes have been synthesized in the laboratory, either by fusing two atoms or by observing the decay of heavier elements. Eight different isotopes of nihonium have been reported with atomic masses 278, 282–287, and 290 (although 287Nh and 290Nh are unconfirmed); they all decay through alpha decay to isotopes of roentgenium,[51] although there have been indications that nihonium-284 can also decay by electron capture to copernicium-284.[52]

Stability and half-livesEdit

 
Nihonium (row 113) is expected to be within the "island of stability" (white circle) and thus its nuclei are slightly more stable than would otherwise be predicted.

The stability of nuclei quickly decreases with the increase in atomic number after curium, element 96, whose half-life is over ten thousand times 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. Nevertheless, for reasons not very well understood, there is a slight increased nuclear stability around atomic numbers 110114, which leads to the appearance of what is known in nuclear physics as the "island of stability". This concept was proposed by University of California professor Glenn Seaborg, eponym of the element seaborgium (element 106) and one of the pioneers in superheavy element research. This island of stability is expected to be centered around the magic numbers of 114 protons and 184 neutrons, as these are expected to correspond to closed nucleon shells, which enhance stability.[53]

All nihonium isotopes are extremely unstable and radioactive; however, the heavier known nihonium isotopes are more stable than the lighter ones, as they are closer to the centre of the island. The most stable known nihonium isotope, 286Nh, is also the heaviest confirmed nihonium isotope; it has a half-life of 8 seconds. The isotope 285Nh, as well as the unconfirmed 287Nh and 290Nh, have been reported to also have half-lives of over a second. The isotopes 284Nh and 283Nh have half-lives of 1 and 0.1 seconds respectively. The remaining two isotopes have half-lives between 0.1 and 100 milliseconds: 282Nh has a half-life of 70 milliseconds, and 278Nh, the lightest known nihonium isotope, is also the shortest-lived known nihonium isotope, with a half-life of just 1.4 milliseconds. This rapid increase in the half-lives as one approaches the closed neutron shell at N = 184 is typical in the superheavy region, particularly in roentgenium, copernicium, and nihonium (elements 111 through 113), where each extra neutron so far multiplies the half-life by a factor of 5 to 20.[54][55]

Predicted propertiesEdit

Physical and atomicEdit

 
Atomic energy levels of outermost s, p, and d electrons of thallium and nihonium[56]

Nihonium is the first member of the 7p series of elements and the heaviest group 13 element on the periodic table, below boron, aluminium, gallium, indium, and thallium. It is predicted to show many differences from its lighter homologues: a largely contributing effect is the spin–orbit (SO) interaction. It is especially strong for the superheavy elements, because their electrons move much faster than in lighter atoms, at velocities comparable to the speed of light.[57] In relation to nihonium atoms, it lowers the 7s and the 7p electron energy levels (stabilizing the corresponding electrons), but two of the 7p electron energy levels are stabilized more than the other four.[58] The stabilization of the 7s electrons is called the inert pair effect, and the effect "tearing" the 7p subshell into the more stabilized and the less stabilized parts is called the subshell splitting. Computation chemists see 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.[57][a] For theoretical purposes, the valence electron configuration may be represented to reflect the 7p subshell split as 7s27p1/21.[1] The first ionization energy of nihonium is expected to be 7.306 eV, the highest in group 13.[1] Similar subshell splitting should exist for the 6d electron levels, with four being 6d3/2 and six being 6d5/2. Both these levels are raised to be close in energy to the 7s ones.[58]

Although periodic trends would predict nihonium to have an atomic radius larger than that of thallium due to it being one period further down in the periodic table, calculations estimate nihonium to have an atomic radius of about 170 pm, the same as that of thallium, due to the relativistic stabilization and contraction of its 7s and 7p1/2 orbitals. Thus nihonium is expected to be much denser than thallium, having a predicted density of about 16 to 18 g/cm3 compared to thallium's 11.85 g/cm3, since nihonium atoms are heavier than thallium atoms but have the same volume.[1][56] The melting and boiling points of nihonium are not experimentally known, but have been calculated to be 430 °C and 1100 °C respectively, exceeding the values for gallium, indium, and thallium, following periodic trends.[1][2]

ChemicalEdit

Nihonium and flerovium are expected to form a very short subperiod, coming between the filling of the 6d5/2 and 7p1/2 subshells. Their chemical behaviour is expected to be very distinctive: nihonium's homology to thallium has been called "doubtful" by computational chemists, while flerovium's to lead has been called only "formal".[59] The most stable oxidation state of nihonium is predicted to be the +1 state,[1] and nihonium is expected to be less reactive than thallium: this is because of the stabilisation and resultant chemical inactivity of the 7s subshell.[4] Besides the most stable +1 oxidation state, nihonium is also expected to show the −1, +3, and +5 oxidation states. The latter two stem from the involvement of the 6d electrons, which, being destabilized, may still be able to participate in chemical reactions in nihonium:[1][4] this may make it behave in some ways like the transition metals.[1] However, the +3 state should still be less stable than the +1 state, following periodic trends. The −1 state would result from the relativistic stabilisation of the 7p1/2 subshell, effectively making nihonium one electron short of a closed-shell configuration; this state should be more stable than it is for thallium.[57] Nihonium should hence be the most electronegative among all the group 13 elements:[1] for example, in the compound NhTs, the negative charge is expected to be on the nihonium atom rather than the tennessine atom, the opposite of what would be expected from simple periodicity.[56] The electron affinity of nihonium is calculated to be around 0.68 eV; in comparison, that of thallium is 0.4 eV.[1] The standard electrode potential for the Nh+/Nh couple is predicted to be −0.6 V.[4]

BCl
3
has a trigonal configuration.
NhCl
3
is predicted to have a T-shaped configuration.

The simplest possible nihonium compound is the monohydride, NhH. The bonding is provided by the 7p1/2 electron of nihonium and the 1s electron of hydrogen. However, the SO interaction causes the binding energy of nihonium monohydride to be reduced by about 1 eV[1] and the nihonium–hydrogen bond length to decrease as the bonding 7p1/2 orbital is relativistically contracted. This is exceptional in the 7p series of elements; all other MH (M = Fl, Mc, Lv, Ts, Og) molecules have relativistic expansion of the bond length instead of contraction.[60] The analogous monofluoride (NhF) should also exist.[56] Nihonium should also be able to form the trihydride (NhH3), trifluoride (NhF3), and trichloride (NhCl3), with nihonium in the +3 oxidation state. Because the 6d5/2 electrons are involved in bonding instead of the 7s ones, these molecules are predicted to be T-shaped and not trigonal planar as their boron analogues are,[b] as there are two extra non-bonding lone pairs in the 6d5/2 orbitals. Although the polyfluoride anion NhF
6
should be stable, the corresponding neutral fluoride NhF5 should be unstable, spontaneously decomposing into the trifluoride and elemental fluorine. Nihonium(I) is predicted to be more similar to silver(I) than thallium(I):[1] the Nh+ ion is expected to more willingly bind anions, so that NhCl should be quite soluble in an excess of hydrochloric acid or in ammonia while TlCl is not. Additionally, in contrast to TlOH, which is strongly basic, nihonium(I) should instead form Nh2O, which would be weakly water-soluble and readily ammonia-soluble.[4] The adsorption behavior of nihonium on gold surfaces in thermochromatographical experiments is expected to be closer to that of astatine than that of thallium.[61] It is theoretically predicted that nihonium should have an enthalpy of sublimation around 150 kJ/mol and an enthalpy of adsorption on a gold surface around −159 kJ/mol.[62] The bonding of nihonium to gold is expected to be more unstable than that of thallium and entirely due to magnetic interactions, with the strong 6d involvement to the bonding suggesting transition character for nihonium.[59]

Experimental chemistryEdit

Unambiguous determination of the chemical characteristics of nihonium has yet to have been established.[63][62] The isotopes 284Nh, 285Nh, and 286Nh have half-lives long enough for chemical investigation.[62] From 2010 to 2012, some preliminary chemical experiments were performed at the JINR to determine the volatility of nihonium. The isotope 284Nh was investigated, made as the daughter of 288Mc produced in the 243Am+48Ca reaction. The nihonium atoms were synthesized in a recoil chamber and then carried along Teflon capillaries at 70 °C by a carrier gas to the gold-covered detectors. While about ten to twenty atoms of 284Nh were produced, none of these atoms were registered by the gold-covered detectors, suggesting either that nihonium was similar in volatility to the noble gases (and thus diffused away too quickly to be detected) or, more plausibly, that pure nihonium was not very volatile and thus could not efficiently pass through the Teflon capillaries at 70 °C.[62] Formation of the hydroxide NhOH would ease the transport, as nihonium hydroxide is expected to be more volatile than elemental nihonium, and this reaction could be facilitated by adding more water vapor into the carrier gas. However, it seems likely that this formation is not kinetically favored, so that the longer-lived isotopes 285Nh and 286Nh were considered more desirable for future experiments.[62][64]

A 2017 experiment at the JINR, producing 284Nh and 285Nh via the 243Am+48Ca reaction as the daughters of 288Mc and 289Mc, avoided this problem by removing the quartz surface, using only Teflon. No nihonium atoms were observed after chemical separation, implying an unexpectedly large retention of nihonium atoms on Teflon surfaces. This experimental result for the interaction limit of nihonium atoms with a Teflon surface (−ΔHTeflon
ads
(Nh) > 45 kJ/mol)
disagrees significantly with previous theory, which expected a far lower value of 14.00 kJ/mol. This suggests that the nihonium species involved in the previous experiment was likely not elemental nihonium but rather nihonium hydroxide, and that high-temperature techniques such as vacuum chromatography would be necessary to further probe the behavior of elemental nihonium.[65] It has been suggested to use bromine saturated with boron tribromide as a carrier gas for experiments on nihonium chemistry; this acts as a strong brominating agent and oxidises nihonium's lighter congener thallium to thallium(III), providing an avenue to investigate the oxidation states of nihonium, similar to earlier experiments done on the bromides of group 5 elements, including the superheavy dubnium.[66]

See alsoEdit

NotesEdit

  1. ^ The quantum number corresponds to the letter in the electron orbital name: 0 to s, 1 to p, 2 to d, etc. See azimuthal quantum number for more information.
  2. ^ Among the stable group 13 elements, only boron forms monomeric halides; those of aluminium and gallium dimerise, and those of indium and thallium form ionic lattice structures.

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Hoffman, Darleane C.; Lee, Diana M.; Pershina, Valeria (2006). "Transactinides and the future elements". In Morss; Edelstein, Norman M.; Fuger, Jean. The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (3rd ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 1-4020-3555-1. 
  2. ^ a b c Seaborg, Glenn T. (c. 2006). "transuranium element (chemical element)". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2010-03-16. 
  3. ^ a b c Bonchev, Danail; Kamenska, Verginia (1981). "Predicting the Properties of the 113–120 Transactinide Elements". Journal of Physical Chemistry. American Chemical Society. 85 (9): 1177–1186. doi:10.1021/j150609a021. 
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Fricke, Burkhard (1975). "Superheavy elements: a prediction of their chemical and physical properties". Recent Impact of Physics on Inorganic Chemistry. 21: 89–144. doi:10.1007/BFb0116498. Retrieved 4 October 2013. 
  5. ^ Thayer, John S. (2010). "Relativistic Effects and the Chemistry of the Heavier Main Group Elements": 82. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9975-5_2. 
  6. ^ a b c Hofmann, S.; Heinz, S.; Mann, R.; Maurer, J.; Münzenberg, G.; Antalic, S.; Barth, W.; Burkhard, H. G.; Dahl, L.; Eberhardt, K.; Grzywacz, R.; Hamilton, J. H.; Henderson, R. A.; Kenneally, J. M.; Kindler, B.; Kojouharov, I.; Lang, R.; Lommel, B.; Miernik, K.; Miller, D.; Moody, K. J.; Morita, K.; Nishio, K.; Popeko, A. G.; Roberto, J. B.; Runke, J.; Rykaczewski, K. P.; Saro, S.; Scheidenberger, C.; Schött, H. J.; Shaughnessy, D. A.; Stoyer, M. A.; Thörle-Popiesch, P.; Tinschert, K.; Trautmann, N.; Uusitalo, J.; Yeremin, A. V. (2016). "Review of even element super-heavy nuclei and search for element 120". The European Physics Journal A. 2016 (52). Bibcode:2016EPJA...52..180H. doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16180-4. 
  7. ^ a b Hofmann, S.; Heinz, S.; Mann, R.; Maurer, J.; Münzenberg, G.; Antalic, S.; Barth, W.; Burkhard, H. G.; Dahl, L.; Eberhardt, K.; Grzywacz, R.; Hamilton, J. H.; Henderson, R. A.; Kenneally, J. M.; Kindler, B.; Kojouharov, I.; Lang, R.; Lommel, B.; Miernik, K.; Miller, D.; Moody, K. J.; Morita, K.; Nishio, K.; Popeko, A. G.; Roberto, J. B.; Runke, J.; Rykaczewski, K. P.; Saro, S.; Schneidenberger, C.; Schött, H. J.; Shaughnessy, D. A.; Stoyer, M. A.; Thörle-Pospiech, P.; Tinschert, K.; Trautmann, N.; Uusitalo, J.; Yeremin, A. V. (2016). "Remarks on the Fission Barriers of SHN and Search for Element 120". In Peninozhkevich, Yu. E.; Sobolev, Yu. G. Exotic Nuclei: EXON-2016 Proceedings of the International Symposium on Exotic Nuclei. Exotic Nuclei. pp. 155–164. ISBN 9789813226555. 
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Chapman, Kit (November 30, 2016). "What it takes to make a new element". Chemistry World. Royal Society of Chemistry. Retrieved December 3, 2016. 
  9. ^ Hofmann, Sigurd (2016). The discovery of elements 107 to 112 (PDF). Nobel Symposium NS160 – Chemistry and Physics of Heavy and Superheavy Elements. doi:10.1051/epjconf/201613106001. 
  10. ^ Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; et al. (1999). "Synthesis of Superheavy Nuclei in the 48Ca + 244Pu Reaction" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 83 (16): 3154. Bibcode:1999PhRvL..83.3154O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3154. 
  11. ^ Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; et al. (2004). "Measurements of cross sections and decay properties of the isotopes of elements 112, 114, and 116 produced in the fusion reactions 233,238U, 242Pu, and 248Cm + 48Ca" (PDF). Physical Review C. 70 (6): 064609. Bibcode:2004PhRvC..70f4609O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.70.064609. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 May 2008. 
  12. ^ Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; et al. (2000). "Synthesis of superheavy nuclei in the 48Ca + 244Pu reaction: 288114". Physical Review C. 62 (4): 041604. Bibcode:2000PhRvC..62d1604O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.62.041604. 
  13. ^ Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; et al. (2004). "Measurements of cross sections for the fusion-evaporation reactions 244Pu(48Ca,xn)292−x114 and 245Cm(48Ca,xn)293−x116". Physical Review C. 69 (5): 054607. Bibcode:2004PhRvC..69e4607O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.69.054607. 
  14. ^ a b c "Experiments on the synthesis of element 115 in the reaction 243Am(48Ca,xn)291−x115", Oganessian et al., JINR Preprints, 2003. Retrieved on 3 March 2008
  15. ^ Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Utyonkoy, V.; Lobanov, Yu.; Abdullin, F.; Polyakov, A.; Shirokovsky, I.; Tsyganov, Yu.; Gulbekian, G.; Bogomolov, S.; Mezentsev, A. N.; et al. (2004). "Experiments on the synthesis of element 115 in the reaction 243Am(48Ca,xn)291−x115". Physical Review C. 69 (2): 021601. Bibcode:2004PhRvC..69b1601O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.69.021601. 
  16. ^ Morita, Kōsuke (5 February 2016). "The Discovery of Element 113". YouTube. Retrieved 28 April 2017. 
  17. ^ a b c d e f g Barber, Robert C.; Karol, Paul J; Nakahara, Hiromichi; Vardaci, Emanuele; Vogt, Erich W. (2011). "Discovery of the elements with atomic numbers greater than or equal to 113 (IUPAC Technical Report)". Pure Appl. Chem. 83 (7): 1485. doi:10.1351/PAC-REP-10-05-01. 
  18. ^ Morita, Kōsuke. "Research on Superheavy Elements at RIKEN" (PDF). www.mi.infn.it. Retrieved 28 April 2017. 
  19. ^ a b Morita, Kosuke; Morimoto, Kouji; Kaji, Daiya; Akiyama, Takahiro; Goto, Sin-ichi; Haba, Hiromitsu; Ideguchi, Eiji; Kanungo, Rituparna; Katori, Kenji; Koura, Hiroyuki; Kudo, Hisaaki; Ohnishi, Tetsuya; Ozawa, Akira; Suda, Toshimi; Sueki, Keisuke; Xu, HuShan; Yamaguchi, Takayuki; Yoneda, Akira; Yoshida, Atsushi; Zhao, YuLiang (2004). "Experiment on the Synthesis of Element 113 in the Reaction 209Bi(70Zn,n)278113". Journal of the Physical Society of Japan. 73 (10): 2593–2596. Bibcode:2004JPSJ...73.2593M. doi:10.1143/JPSJ.73.2593. 
  20. ^ a b c d e f Karol, Paul J.; Barber, Robert C.; Sherrill, Bradley M.; Vardaci, Emanuele; Yamazaki, Toshimitsu (22 December 2015). "Discovery of the elements with atomic numbers Z = 113, 115 and 117 (IUPAC Technical Report)" (PDF). Pure Appl. Chem. 88 (1–2): 139–153. doi:10.1515/pac-2015-0502. Retrieved 2 April 2016. 
  21. ^ a b "Results of the experiment on chemical identification of Db as a decay product of element 115", Oganessian et al., JINR preprints, 2004. Retrieved on 3 March 2008
  22. ^ Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Utyonkov, V.; Dmitriev, S.; Lobanov, Yu.; Itkis, M.; Polyakov, A.; Tsyganov, Yu.; Mezentsev, A.; Yeremin, A.; Voinov, A. A.; et al. (2005). "Synthesis of elements 115 and 113 in the reaction 243Am + 48Ca". Physical Review C. 72 (3): 034611. Bibcode:2005PhRvC..72c4611O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.72.034611. 
  23. ^ a b c d Morimoto, Kouji (2016). "The discovery of element 113 at RIKEN" (PDF). www.physics.adelaide.edu.au. 26th International Nuclear Physics Conference. Retrieved 14 May 2017. 
  24. ^ Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Utyonkov, V.; Lobanov, Yu.; Abdullin, F.; Polyakov, A.; Sagaidak, R.; Shirokovsky, I.; Tsyganov, Yu.; Voinov, A.; Gulbekian, Gulbekian; et al. (2007). "Synthesis of the isotope 282113 in the 237Np+48Ca fusion reaction" (PDF). Physical Review C. 76: 011601(R). Bibcode:2007PhRvC..76a1601O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.76.011601. 
  25. ^ Morita, Kosuke; Morimoto, Kouji; Kaji, Daiya; Haba, Hiromitsu; Ozeki, Kazutaka; Kudou, Yuki; Sato, Nozomi; Sumita, Takayuki; Yoneda, Akira; Ichikawa, Takatoshi; Fujimori, Yasuyuki; Goto, Sin-ichi; Ideguchi, Eiji; Kasamatsu, Yoshitaka; Katori, Kenji; Komori, Yukiko; Koura, Hiroyuki; Kudo, Hisaaki; Ooe, Kazuhiro; Ozawa, Akira; Tokanai, Fuyuki; Tsukada, Kazuaki; Yamaguchi, Takayuki; Yoshida, Atsushi (25 May 2009). "Decay Properties of 266Bh and 262Db Produced in the 248Cm + 23Na Reaction". Journal of the Physical Society of Japan. 78 (6): 064201–1–6. arXiv:0904.1093 . Bibcode:2009JPSJ...78f4201M. doi:10.1143/JPSJ.78.064201. 
  26. ^ Morimoto, Kouji (October 2009). "Production and Decay Properties of 266Bh and its daughter nuclei by using the 248Cm(23Na,5n)266Bh Reaction" (PDF). www.kernchemie.uni-mainz.de. University of Mainz. Retrieved 28 April 2017. 
  27. ^ Oganessian, Yuri Ts.; Abdullin, F. Sh.; Bailey, P. D.; Benker, D. E.; Bennett, M. E.; Dmitriev, S. N.; Ezold, J. G.; Hamilton, J. H.; Henderson, R. A.; Itkis, M. G.; Lobanov, Yuri V.; Mezentsev, A. N.; Moody, K. J.; Nelson, S. L.; Polyakov, A. N.; Porter, C. E.; Ramayya, A. V.; Riley, F. D.; Roberto, J. B.; Ryabinin, M. A.; Rykaczewski, K. P.; Sagaidak, R. N.; Shaughnessy, D. A.; Shirokovsky, I. V.; Stoyer, M. A.; Subbotin, V. G.; Sudowe, R.; Sukhov, A. M.; Tsyganov, Yu. S.; Utyonkov, Vladimir K.; Voinov, A. A.; Vostokin, G. K.; Wilk, P. A. (2010-04-09). "Synthesis of a New Element with Atomic Number Z=117". Physical Review Letters. American Physical Society. 104 (14). Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104n2502O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.142502. PMID 20481935. 
  28. ^ a b K. Morita; Morimoto, Kouji; Kaji, Daiya; Haba, Hiromitsu; Ozeki, Kazutaka; Kudou, Yuki; Sumita, Takayuki; Wakabayashi, Yasuo; Yoneda, Akira; Tanaka, Kengo; et al. (2012). "New Results in the Production and Decay of an Isotope, 278113, of the 113th Element". Journal of the Physical Society of Japan. 81 (10): 103201. arXiv:1209.6431 . Bibcode:2012JPSJ...81j3201M. doi:10.1143/JPSJ.81.103201. 
  29. ^ "Search for element 113 concluded at last". Press Release. RIKEN. 27 September 2012. Retrieved 27 September 2012. 
  30. ^ SHE Research at RIKEN/GARIS by Kosuke Morita
  31. ^ "Existence of new element confirmed". Lund University. 27 August 2013. Retrieved 10 April 2016. 
  32. ^ "Spectroscopy of element 115 decay chains (Accepted for publication on Physical Review Letters on 9 August 2013)". Retrieved 2 September 2013. 
  33. ^ "Decay spectroscopy of element 115 daughters: 280Rg→276Mt and 276Mt→Bh". Bibcode:2015PhRvC..92b1301G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.92.021301. 
  34. ^ a b "Element 113: Ununtrium Reportedly Synthesised In Japan". Huffington Post. September 2012. Retrieved 22 April 2013. 
  35. ^ a b McKellar, Bruce (22–23 October 2016). "President's report to the meeting of the IUPAP Council and Commission Chairs" (PDF). iupap.org. International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Retrieved 14 January 2018. 
  36. ^ a b Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (6 January 2016). "Discovery of the new chemical elements with numbers 113, 115, 117 and 118". www.jinr.ru. Joint Institute for Nuclear Research. Retrieved 14 January 2018. 
  37. ^ a b Discovery and Assignment of Elements with Atomic Numbers 113, 115, 117 and 118. IUPAC (2015-12-30)
  38. ^ Forsberg, U.; Rudolph, D.; Fahlander, C.; Golubev, P.; Sarmiento, L. G.; Åberg, S.; Block, M.; Düllmann, Ch. E.; Heßberger, F. P.; Kratz, J. V.; Yakushev, A. (9 July 2016). "A new assessment of the alleged link between element 115 and element 117 decay chains" (PDF). Physics Letters B. 760 (2016): 293–6. Bibcode:2016PhLB..760..293F. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.008. Retrieved 2 April 2016. 
  39. ^ Forsberg, Ulrika; Fahlander, Claes; Rudolph, Dirk (2016). Congruence of decay chains of elements 113, 115, and 117 (PDF). Nobel Symposium NS160 – Chemistry and Physics of Heavy and Superheavy Elements. doi:10.1051/epjconf/201613102003. 
  40. ^ Zlokazov, V. B.; Utyonkov, V. K. (8 June 2017). "Analysis of decay chains of superheavy nuclei produced in the 249Bk+48Ca and 243Am+48Ca reactions". Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics. 44 (075107). doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aa7293. Retrieved 9 January 2018. 
  41. ^ Chatt, J. (1979). "Recommendations for the Naming of Elements of Atomic Numbers Greater than 100". Pure Appl. Chem. 51 (2): 381–384. doi:10.1351/pac197951020381. 
  42. ^ a b Noorden, Richard Van. "Element 113 at Last?". 
  43. ^ 新元素113番、日本の発見確実に 合成に3回成功. Nihon Keizai Shimbun (in Japanese). 2012-09-27. Retrieved 2012-10-13. 
  44. ^ Ikeda, Nagao (25 July 2011). "The discoveries of uranium 237 and symmetric fission — From the archival papers of Nishina and Kimura". Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B: Physical and Biological Sciences. 87 (7): 371–6. Bibcode:2011PJAB...87..371I. doi:10.2183/pjab.87.371. Retrieved 5 May 2017. 
  45. ^ En'yo, Hideto (26 May 2017). "ビックバンから 113番元素ニホニウムまで、元素創成の138億年" Bikkuban kara 113-ban genso nihoniumu made, genso sōsei no 138 oku-nen [From the Big Bang to the 113th element nihonium: element creation of 13.8 billion years] (PDF). www.ssken.gr.jp (in Japanese). Retrieved 28 January 2018. 
  46. ^ "IUPAC Is Naming The Four New Elements Nihonium, Moscovium, Tennessine, And Oganesson". IUPAC. 2016-06-08. Retrieved 2016-06-08. 
  47. ^ "Japan scientists plan to name atomic element 113 'Nihonium'". Mainichi Shimbun. June 8, 2016. Archived from the original on June 9, 2016. Japanese scientists who discovered the atomic element 113 plan to name it "Nihonium", sources close to the matter said Wednesday. 
  48. ^ "ニホニウム」有力 日本初の新元素名称案、国際機関が9日公表" [Nihonium the most probable] (in Japanese). The Sankei Shimbun. June 6, 2016. Rather than initially proposed Japanium which is derived from Latin or French, Morita group leader seems to stick to his own language. 
  49. ^ "IUPAC Announces the Names of the Elements 113, 115, 117, and 118". IUPAC. 2016-11-30. Retrieved 2016-11-30. 
  50. ^ News on Japan (15 March 2017). "Naming ceremony held for new element 'nihonium'". Retrieved 28 January 2018. 
  51. ^ Sonzogni, Alejandro. "Interactive Chart of Nuclides". National Nuclear Data Center: Brookhaven National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-06-06. 
  52. ^ http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1502.03030.pdf
  53. ^ Considine, Glenn D.; Kulik, Peter H. (2002). Van Nostrand's scientific encyclopedia (9th ed.). Wiley-Interscience. ISBN 978-0-471-33230-5. OCLC 223349096. 
  54. ^ Audi, Georges; Bersillon, O.; Blachot, J.; Wapstra, A. H. (2003). "The NUBASE Evaluation of Nuclear and Decay Properties". Nuclear Physics A. Atomic Mass Data Center. 729: 3–128. Bibcode:2003NuPhA.729....3A. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2003.11.001. 
  55. ^ Oganesson, Yu. Ts.; Sobiczewski, A.; Ter-Akopian, G. M. (9 January 2017). "Superheavy nuclei: from predictions to discovery". Physica Scripta. 92: 023003–1–21. doi:10.1088/1402-4896/aa53c1. 
  56. ^ a b c d Stysziński, Jacek (2010). Why do we Need Relativistic Computational Methods?. pp. 139–146. doi:10.1007/9781402099755_3. 
  57. ^ a b c Thayer, John S. (2010). "Relativistic Effects and the Chemistry of the Heavier Main Group Elements": 63–67. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9975-5_2. 
  58. ^ a b Fægri Jr., Knut; Saue, Trond (2001). "Diatomic molecules between very heavy elements of group 13 and group 17: A study of relativistic effects on bonding". The Journal of Chemical Physics. American Institute of Physics. 115 (6): 2456. Bibcode:2001JChPh.115.2456F. doi:10.1063/1.1385366. 
  59. ^ a b Zaitsevskii, A.; van Wüllen, C.; Rusakov, A.; Titov, A. (September 2007). "Relativistic DFT and ab initio calculations on the seventh-row superheavy elements: E113 - E114" (PDF). jinr.ru. Retrieved 17 February 2018. 
  60. ^ Han, Young-Kyu; Bae, Cheolbeom; Son, Sang-Kil; Lee, Yoon Sup (2000). "Spin–orbit effects on the transactinide p-block element monohydrides MH (M=element 113–118)". Journal of Chemical Physics. 112 (6): 2684. Bibcode:2000JChPh.112.2684H. doi:10.1063/1.480842. 
  61. ^ Demidov, Yu. A. (15 February 2017). "Quantum chemical modelling of electronic structure of nihonium and astatine compounds". jinr.ru. Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions. Retrieved 12 June 2017. 
  62. ^ a b c d e Eichler, Robert (2013). "First foot prints of chemistry on the shore of the Island of Superheavy Elements" (PDF). Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Science. 420 (1): 012003. arXiv:1212.4292 . Bibcode:2013JPhCS.420a2003E. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/420/1/012003. Retrieved 11 September 2014. 
  63. ^ Düllmann, Christoph E. (2012). "Superheavy elements at GSI: a broad research program with element 114 in the focus of physics and chemistry". Radiochimica Acta. 100 (2): 67–74. doi:10.1524/ract.2011.1842. 
  64. ^ Moody, Ken. "Synthesis of Superheavy Elements". In Schädel, Matthias; Shaughnessy, Dawn. The Chemistry of Superheavy Elements (2nd ed.). Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 24–8. ISBN 9783642374661. 
  65. ^ Aksenov, Nikolay V.; Steinegger, Patrick; Abdullin, Farid Sh.; Albin, Yury V.; Bozhikov, Gospodin A.; Chepigin, Viktor I.; Eichler, Robert; Lebedev, Vyacheslav Ya.; Mamudarov, Alexander Sh.; Malyshev, Oleg N.; Petrushkin, Oleg V.; Polyakov, Alexander N.; Popov, Yury A.; Sabel'nikov, Alexey V.; Sagaidak, Roman N.; Shirokovsky, Igor V.; Shumeiko, Maksim V.; Starodub, Gennadii Ya.; Tsyganov, Yuri S.; Utyonkov, Vladimir K.; Voinov, Alexey A.; Vostokin, Grigory K.; Yeremin, Alexander; Dmitriev, Sergey N. (July 2017). "On the volatility of nihonium (Nh, Z = 113)". The European Physical Journal A. 53 (158). Bibcode:2017EPJA...53..158A. doi:10.1140/epja/i2017-12348-8. 
  66. ^ Tereshatov, E. E.; Boltoeva, M. Yu.; Folden III, C. M. (2015). "Resin Ion Exchange and Liquid-Liquid Extraction of Indium and Thallium from Chloride Media". Solvent Extraction and Ion Exchange. doi:10.1080/07366299.2015.1080529. 

External linksEdit