August 30, 1997
For Immediate Release
IUPAC Adopts Final Recommendations for Names of Transfermium
Elements
The Council of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
(IUPAC) today approved final recommendations for names of elements 101-109.
By a vote of 64 to 5 (with 12 abstentions) delegates from IUPAC's 40
member countries accepted the report of its Committee on Nomenclature
of Inorganic Chemistry (CNIC), thus ending a three-year controversy
over the names of these short-lived, artificially produced elements.
The names and symbols recommended by IUPAC are 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's report recommended that elements 101, mendelevium;
102, nobelium; and 103, lawrencium should retain their commonly accepted
names although it is clear that the original claim of discovery of nobelium
is in error. The priorities for the discovery of elements 104 and 105
are disputed. CNIC accepted the name proposed for 104 by the Berkeley
group, rutherfordium, and recommended that element 105 should be called
dubnium in honor of the Dubna laboratory, where important contributions
to the creation of transfermium elements have originated. Element 106
was uncontested as a discovery, and the name seaborgium (Sg) was accepted.
Elements 107, 108 and 109 are also uncontested discoveries and CNIC
accepted the proposals of the discoverers in the Darmstadt group, except
for bohrium, rather than nielsbohrium for 107, after consultation with
Danish authorities.
The final recommendations are based partly on suggestions received
during the official five-month comment period called for in IUPAC's
Bylaws. Comments came from individual chemists worldwide and from the
40 National Adhering Organizations that comprise IUPAC. The new names
replace the provisional recommendations initially proposed by CNIC in
August 1994.
The naming of the transfermium elements has been controversial, partly
because of disagreements on priority for discovery of several elements.
According to Alan Sargeson, Chairman of CNIC, the Commission accepted
the conclusions on discovery reached by the Transfermium Working Group
(TWG) in 1993. The TWG was formed jointly by IUPAC and the International
Union of Pure and Applied Physics in 1986 to establish criteria that
must be satisfied for the discovery of a new chemical element to be
recognized and to evaluate competing claims. In selecting names, CNIC
gave great weight to proposals by discoverers of the elements but considered
other factors as well.
IUPAC's recommendations in a wide range of chemistry carry no legal
force but are normally viewed as authoritative throughout the world.
IUPAC President Albert Fischli pointed out that the process of proposing
provisional recommendations, soliciting comments from the chemistry
community and making revisions where indicated has worked well. "Unfortunately,
he said, "with conflicting claims and preferences, it has not been
possible to devise names that are completely satisfying to all the laboratories
involved in these discoveries. I believe that the final recommendations
come close to achieving our goal and hope they will be used worldwide."
Further information:
Dr. John W. Jost
Executive Director, IUPAC
Telephone: +1 919 485 8700
Fax: +1 919 485 8706
E-mail: [email protected]