All elements with an atomic number above 100 are called the “transfermium elements.” These synthetic elements are fairly new discoveries, and therefore were named most recently. While there had been 100 prior elements to set naming precedents, this didn’t ensure a smooth process for the nomenclature of the nine following elements (Elding, 1994).
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) is the body responsible for establishing chemical nomenclature standards, and the IUPAC Council holds final decision-making authority. Previously, only the Commission on Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (CNIC), a group within IUPAC, could formally recommend decisions to the Council (Koppenol, 2002). However, in 2002, long after the naming of elements 101–109, the CNIC was disbanded and the responsibility was given to its Inorganic Chemistry Division.
Though IUPAC has executive authority over element names, their process allows for input from various sources, typically: the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics; National Adhering Organizations (NAOs), each representing a member country of IUPAC; and the public (IUPAC, n.d.; 1997; Hofmann, et al., 2020). Additionally, an element’s discoverers have the right to suggest a name (Koppenol, 2002).
Elements 101, 102, 103, 108, and 109 were named with little difficulty under this process; however, various issues arose for elements 104 through 107 (Figure 1) (IUPAC, 1997).
Figure 1: Names for elements 102 to 109 favoured by various organizations in certain years. Organizations from left to right: GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research, American Chemical Society, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC, 1997).
Elements 104 and 105 encountered the difficulty of two competing laboratories claiming priority of discovery and the accompanying right to suggest a name (IUPAC, 1997). The Soviet Dubna laboratory and American Berkeley laboratory made the most consequential contributions to the synthesis of these elements. However, IUPAC determined that Dubna’s work on developing the synthesis techniques for transfermium elements warranted priority of discovery for these two elements. In recognition of this, the CNIC recommended that element 105 be named “dubnium,” which the Council accepted. Having honoured Dubna, and Berkeley having been honoured similarly on other occasions, IUPAC elected to name element 104 “rutherfordium,” after nuclear physicist Ernest Rutherford.
Element 106 had perhaps the most contentious naming process of any transfermium element. The Berkeley lab was recognised in 1992 as having adequately proven its existence; on its behalf, the American Chemical Society proposed the name “seaborgium” to IUPAC after one of the discoverers, Glenn Seaborg (Kragh, 2018). The recommendation of the CNIC in late 1994 opposed this suggestion on the grounds that an element should not be named after a living person, and favoured the name “rutherfordium” (Rothstein, 1995; Hofmann, et al., 2020). However, after significant opposition from the scientific community, the CNIC changed this decision, and in 1997, the IUPAC Council approved the name “seaborgium” (IUPAC, 1997).
Element 107 saw quite a bit of debate over the potential name “nielsbohrium” (IUPAC, 1997) The use of a person’s full name in an element name was unprecedented. IUPAC resolved this fairly easily, consulting the Danish NAO, whose preference of “bohrium” was quickly accepted.
While organizations like IUPAC exist to make scientific communication universal, it often results in conflict between members, as well as convoluted bureaucratic processes. However, the benefits of effective global communication between scientists and to the public are invaluable and far outweigh the drawbacks of these often ego-driven disputes.
References:
Elding, L.I., 1994. Names and symbols of transfermium elements (IUPAC Recommendations 1994). Pure and applied chemistry. 66(12), pp.2419–2421. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac199466122419
Hofmann, S., Dmitriev, S.N., Fahlander, C., Gates, J.M., Roberto, J.B. and Sakai, H., 2020. On the discovery of new elements (IUPAC/IUPAP Report): Report of the 2017 Joint Working Group of IUPAC and IUPAP. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 92(9), pp.1387-1446. https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-2020-2926
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUCN)., n.d. National Adhering Organizations. [online] <https://iupac.org/home/national-adhering-organizations/> [Accessed 15 September 2023]
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), 1997. Names and symbols of transfermium elements (IUPAC Recommendations 1997). Pure and Applied Chemistry, 69(12), pp.2471-2474. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac199769122471
Koppenol, W.H., 2002. Naming of new elements (IUPAC Recommendations 2002). Pure and Applied Chemistry, 74(5), pp.787-791. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200274050787
Kragh, H., 2018. The Transfermium Wars. In: From Transuranic to Superheavy Elements. Cham: Springer. pp.59-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75813-8_5
Rothstein, L., 1995. The transfermium wars. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 51(1). pp.5-6. [online] <link.gale.com/apps/doc/A15987455/AONE?u=ocul_mcmaster&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=9b0c9752> [Accessed 15 September 2023]