Two New Superheavy Chemical Elements Formally Recognized

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


This year has been designated the International Year of Chemistry, so it is only fitting that two new members of the atomic family should be welcomed in during 2011.

The elements with atomic numbers of 114 and 116 have been recognized by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), which credited a Russia–U.S. collaboration with their discovery. An element's atomic number describes the number of protons in its nucleus. IUPAC has invited the collaborating scientists, from the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, to propose names for the new elements. For now elements 114 and 116 retain their provisional number-based names, ununquadium and ununhexium, respectively. Both the newly vetted elements have higher atomic numbers than any element yet recognized by IUPAC. All elements with atomic numbers above 92 (the atomic number of uranium) decay relatively quickly and are mostly man-made, although elements 93 and 94 (neptunium and plutonium) do exist naturally in trace quantities.


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.


Claims for the synthesis of both fleeting man-made elements have been around for more than a decade. In 1999 the Dubna group reported having produced element 114 with other collaborators via fusion reactions between calcium and plutonium. And in 2000 the Dubna group and the Livermore group announced that they had synthesized element 116 by fusing calcium and curium. But IUPAC operates conservatively, waiting for evidence that shows the production of a new element "beyond reasonable doubt."

For elements 114 and 116, experiments by the Dubna–Livermore group in 2004, and subsequent confirmation work in the years that followed, finally met that standard. Evidence for proposed elements 113, 115 and 118 does not yet satisfy IUPAC's criteria for discovery. History has justified that caution. A 1999 study claiming the production of element 118, a synthesis that was claimed to have also generated elements 114 and 116 as radioactive decay products, was later retracted by the study's authors.

Elements 114 and 116 will join element 112, which IUPAC recognized in 2009, as newly official members of the periodic table. Element 112, whose discovery was credited to a German team, is now known as copernicium, or Cn, after Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus. Its recognition paved the way for the acceptance of elements 114 and 116, which produce copernicium as part of their decay chains. In one decay chain, for instance, element 116 decays to element 114 with a lifetime of about 26 milliseconds. Then element 114 decays to copernicium after an average lifetime of 1.1 seconds.

Photo credit: © iStockphoto/David Freund

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe