New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Chemists Report New Superheavy Elements

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Two more boxes may need to be added to the periodic table. According to a report in the current issue of the journal Physical Review C scientists have observed the first ever evidence of superheavy elements 113 and 115.

Superheavy element hunting is not an easy task. The more protons and neutrons that are packed into a nucleus, the less stable an atom becomes. In order to manufacture elements heavier than uranium, which has 92 protons, scientists smash together smaller nuclei to form short-lived heavy nuclei. In the new work, a team of researchers from the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory blasted a target of americum-243 atoms (each having 95 protons) with a beam of calcium-48 atoms (which have 20 protons each). Out of billions of candidates, the investigators detected four atoms of element 115. After just 90 milliseconds, the novel nuclei each decayed into element 113, which had also never been seen before. Just over a second later, element 113 was gone, too, having decayed first into element 111 and then dubnium (element 105).

"This just opens up the horizon on the periodic table," remarks Ken Moody of Livermore. "It allows us to expand the fundamental principles of chemistry. From new chemistry comes new materials and new technology." For now, the two elements are known by monikers that refer to their atomic numbers, or the number of protons they contain: ununtrium (113) and ununpentium (115). The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry will rename them only after the discovery can be independently confirmed. (In 2002, the claimed discovery of element 118 was retracted after other collaborations failed to reproduce the results of the original 1999 experiment.)

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe