From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Protactinium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Protactinium is part of the Actinides series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Version 0.5  
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
WikiProject Elements (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.


Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by schnee. Elementbox converted 10:47, 17 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 20:28, 13 July 2005). 13 July 2005

Image appears false[edit]

The image of Protactinium on this page appears to be a CGI image of some white powder - it is not a real photograph. Please remove (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the image. --Itub (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
rsc.orgis the source of the Protactinium image. So where is the copy right for that image?
It's fake! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Information Sources[edit]

Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.


  • KASIMIR FAJANS & DONALD F. C. MORRIS (1973). "Discovery and Naming of the Isotopes of Element 91". Nature. 244: 137 – 138. doi:10.1038/244137a0. 
  • Otto Hahn und Lise Meitner (1931). "Notiz über die Entdeckung des Protactiniums". Naturwissenschaften. 19 (35): 738. doi:10.1007/BF01522353. 
  • Aristid v. Grosse (1932). "Zur Entdeckung und Isolierung des Elements 91". Naturwissenschaften. 20 (21): 362–363. doi:10.1007/BF01504928. 
  • Aristid v. Grosse (1927). "Die Konzentrierung und Isolierung des Elements 91 — Protactinium". 15 (37): 766–767. doi:10.1007/BF01504977. 
  • Otto Hahn (1928). "Das Protactinium als radioaktives und als chemisches Element". Naturwissenschaften. 16 (23): 453–457. doi:10.1007/BF01504842. 
  • Otto Hahn und Aristid v. Grosse (1928). "Über die β-Strahlung des Protactiniums". Zeitschrift für Physik A Hadrons and Nuclei. 48 (1-2): 1–10. doi:10.1007/BF01351569. 
  • Lise Meitner (1918). "Über das Protactinium". Zeitschrift für Physik A Hadrons and Nuclei. 6 (22): 324–326. doi:10.1007/BF01507660. 

--Stone (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


I think that α-Pa a tetragonal structure I4/mmm not orthorhombic, see e.g. --Axiosaurus (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

is there a mistake in the isotope decay data[edit]

Look closely. It says Pa-234 metastable has two decay modes, one to U234 directly which releases 2.29 MeV of energy, and one isometric transition to Pa-234 which releases 0.0694 MeV of energy, while regular Pa-234 always decays to U-234 with 0.23 MeV of energy. Note, however, that 0.23+0.0694 is NOT 2.29. Not even close. Perhaps the Pa-234 decay to U-234 should in fact be 2.23 MeV and not 0.23? Unless perhaps one pathway involves the release of two neutrinos (that's one energetic damn neutrino to take away 2 MeV!) or some other particle not accounted for, the total energy in either pathway to U-234 should add up to the same thing by the laws of thermodynamics. (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Data seem Ok, and this might answer your comment (different final 234U states). Materialscientist (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

atomic mass units not adding up[edit]

in the section:

Protactinium-233 is formed upon neutron capture by 232Th. It further either decays to uranium-233 or captures another neutron and becomes uranium-235. Whereas both products are useful for the breeding process, and are the desired nuclear fuel, their production from protactinium-233 is rather inefficient: 233Pa has a relatively long for the process half-life of 27 days and high cross section for neutron capture (the so-called "neutron poison"). Thus instead of rapidly decaying to the useful 233U, a significant fraction of 233Pa atoms absorb more neutrons, converting into undesirable higher actinides. In this process, they consume neutrons from 232Th, degrading the reactor efficiency.

it would seem that 233U gains *one* neutron, and is converted to 235U rather than the 234U that one might expect. I'll admit that I never got around to taking a college level nuclear physics course, but I was under the impression that protons and neutrons were worth one AMU each. I suspect that there was some confusion, as the normal decay path is for 238U to emit an alpha particle in decaying to 234Th, which then emits a beta particle to decay into 234Pa, which then captures a neutron to become 235Pa, which can then emit another beta particle to become 235U.

Anyone out there with a better background who can confirm this?

ck DocKrin (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems the description was correct, but had a typo of 235U instead of 234U. Corrected that, with a reference. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Protactinium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FREYWA 08:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I have nominated copper for GA. Look here! FREYWA 08:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

No uses for protactinium? Fine.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Inconsistent mention of coordination (7-fold coordinated vs. coordination 7 in the halides section). Several sentences (like the last one of the applications section) are incoherent in their structure (makes people frustrated) and need to be fixed.
Tweaked. It would be easier if you posted awkward sentences, or just go ahead and fix the wording as you read. Materialscientist (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Where are the sources for the Isotopes section?
Added. Materialscientist (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    This is OK but where is the caption for the picture in the halides section?
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Wow, this is the fastest GA review I have ever had. Good job, Lanthanon.


Who is "Lanthanon"? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You. FREYWA 08:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Decay modes[edit]

This section is so full of errors I suspect it is intentional. Check out alpha and beta error under isotopes if you need any convincing. It is totally back the front.

Johnpaterson1234 (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The infobox was wrong for years and nobody bothered to check. I've adjusted the modes and values per CRC Handbook (92nd edition) and (they are close to CRC, but I suppose they have more accurate values). I took only the major decay mode - for all the listed isotopes it accounted for >90% of intensity. Materialscientist (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)