This is a good article. Follow the link for more information.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Unbibium,  122Ubb
Pronunciation/ˌnbˈbəm/ (OON-by-BY-əm)
Alternative nameselement 122, eka-thorium
Unbibium in the periodic table
Hydrogen Helium
Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon
Sodium Magnesium Aluminium Silicon Phosphorus Sulfur Chlorine Argon
Potassium Calcium Scandium Titanium Vanadium Chromium Manganese Iron Cobalt Nickel Copper Zinc Gallium Germanium Arsenic Selenium Bromine Krypton
Rubidium Strontium Yttrium Zirconium Niobium Molybdenum Technetium Ruthenium Rhodium Palladium Silver Cadmium Indium Tin Antimony Tellurium Iodine Xenon
Caesium Barium Lanthanum Cerium Praseodymium Neodymium Promethium Samarium Europium Gadolinium Terbium Dysprosium Holmium Erbium Thulium Ytterbium Lutetium Hafnium Tantalum Tungsten Rhenium Osmium Iridium Platinum Gold Mercury (element) Thallium Lead Bismuth Polonium Astatine Radon
Francium Radium Actinium Thorium Protactinium Uranium Neptunium Plutonium Americium Curium Berkelium Californium Einsteinium Fermium Mendelevium Nobelium Lawrencium Rutherfordium Dubnium Seaborgium Bohrium Hassium Meitnerium Darmstadtium Roentgenium Copernicium Nihonium Flerovium Moscovium Livermorium Tennessine Oganesson
Ununennium Unbinilium Unbiunium
Unquadquadium Unquadpentium Unquadhexium Unquadseptium Unquadoctium Unquadennium Unpentnilium Unpentunium Unpentbium Unpenttrium Unpentquadium Unpentpentium Unpenthexium Unpentseptium Unpentoctium Unpentennium Unhexnilium Unhexunium Unhexbium Unhextrium Unhexquadium Unhexpentium Unhexhexium Unhexseptium Unhexoctium Unhexennium Unseptnilium Unseptunium Unseptbium
Unbibium Unbitrium Unbiquadium Unbipentium Unbihexium Unbiseptium Unbioctium Unbiennium Untrinilium Untriunium Untribium Untritrium Untriquadium Untripentium Untrihexium Untriseptium Untrioctium Untriennium Unquadnilium Unquadunium Unquadbium Unquadtrium


Atomic number (Z)122
Periodperiod 8
Element category  unknown chemical properties, but probably a superactinide
Electron configuration[Og] 7d1 8s2 8p1 (predicted)[1]
Electrons per shell
2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 9, 3
Physical properties
Atomic properties
Oxidation states(+4) (predicted)[2]
Ionization energies
  • 1st: 545 (predicted)[3] kJ/mol
  • 2nd: 1090 (predicted)[3] kJ/mol
  • 3rd: 1968 (predicted)[1] kJ/mol
Other properties
CAS Number54576-73-7
NamingIUPAC systematic element name
| references

Unbibium, also known as element 122 or eka-thorium, is the hypothetical chemical element in the periodic table with the placeholder symbol of Ubb and atomic number 122. Unbibium and Ubb are the temporary systematic IUPAC name and symbol respectively, until the element is discovered, confirmed, and a permanent name is decided upon. In the periodic table of the elements, it is expected to follow unbiunium as the second element of the superactinides and the fourth element of the 8th period. It has attracted recent attention, for similarly to unbiunium, it is expected to fall within the range of the island of stability, potentially conferring additional stability on some isotopes, especially 306Ubb which is expected to have a magic number of neutrons (184).

Despite several attempts, unbibium has not yet been synthesized, nor have any naturally occurring isotopes been found to exist. There are currently no plans to attempt to synthesize unbibium. In 2008, it was claimed to have been discovered in natural thorium samples,[4] but that claim has now been dismissed by recent repetitions of the experiment using more accurate techniques.

Chemically, unbibium is expected to show some resemblance to its lighter congeners cerium and thorium. However, relativistic effects may cause some of its properties to differ; for example, it is expected to have a ground state electron configuration of [Og] 7d18s28p1,[2] despite its predicted position in the g-block superactinide series.


Synthesis attempts[edit]


The first attempts to synthesize unbibium were performed in 1972 by Flerov et al. at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR), using the heavy-ion induced hot fusion reactions:[5]

+ 66,68
* → no atoms

These experiments were motivated by early predictions on the existence of an island of stability at N = 184 and Z > 120. No atoms were detected and a yield limit of 5 nb (5,000 pb) was measured. Current results (see flerovium) have shown that the sensitivity of these experiments were too low by at least 3 orders of magnitude.[6]

In 2000, the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI) Hemholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research performed a very similar experiment with much higher sensitivity:[5]

+ 70
* → no atoms

These results indicate that the synthesis of such heavier elements remains a significant challenge and further improvements of beam intensity and experimental efficiency is required. The sensitivity should be increased to 1 fb in the future for more quality results.

Another unsuccessful attempt to synthesize unbibium was carried out in 1978 at the GSI Helmholtz Center, where a natural erbium target was bombarded with xenon-136 ions:[5]

+ 136
* → no atoms

In particular, the reaction between 170Er and 136Xe was expected to yield alpha-emitters with half-lives of microseconds that would decay down to isotopes of flerovium with half-lives perhaps increasing up to several hours, as flerovium is predicted to lie near the center of the island of stability. After twelve hours of irradiation, nothing was found in this reaction. Following a similar unsuccessful attempt to synthesize unbiunium from 238U and 65Cu, it was concluded that half-lives of superheavy nuclei must be less than one microsecond or the cross sections are very small.[7] More recent research into synthesis of superheavy elements suggests that both conclusions are true.[8][9] The two attempts in the 1970s to synthesize unbibium were both propelled by the research investigating whether superheavy elements could potentially be naturally occurring.[5]

Compound nucleus fission[edit]

Several experiments studying the fission characteristics of various superheavy compound nuclei such as 306Ubb were performed between 2000–2004 at the Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions. Two nuclear reactions were used, namely 248Cm + 58Fe and 242Pu + 64Ni.[5] The results reveal how superheavy nuclei fission predominantly by expelling closed shell nuclei such as 132Sn (Z=50, N=82). It was also found that the yield for the fusion-fission pathway was similar between 48Ca and 58Fe projectiles, suggesting a possible future use of 58Fe projectiles in superheavy element formation.[10]


Predicted decay modes of superheavy nuclei. The line of synthesized proton-rich nuclei is expected to be broken soon after Z = 120, because of the shortening half-lives until around Z = 124, the increasing contribution of spontaneous fission instead of alpha decay from Z = 122 onward until it dominates from Z = 125, and the proton drip line around Z = 130. The white ring denotes the expected location of the island of stability; the two squares outlined in white denote 291Cn and 293Cn, predicted to be the longest-lived nuclides on the island with half-lives of centuries or millennia.[11][8]

Every element from mendelevium onward was produced in fusion-evaporation reactions, culminating in the discovery of the heaviest known element oganesson in 2002[12][13] and most recently tennessine in 2010.[14] These reactions approached the limit of current technology; for example, the synthesis of tennessine required 22 milligrams of 249Bk and an intense 48Ca beam for six months. The intensity of beams in superheavy element research cannot exceed 1012 projectiles per second without damaging the target and detector, and producing larger quantities of increasingly rare and unstable actinide targets is impractical.[15] Consequently, future experiments must be done at facilities such as the under-construction superheavy element factory (SHE-factory) at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) or RIKEN, which will allow experiments to run for longer stretches of time with increased detection capabilities and enable otherwise inaccessible reactions.[16]

It is possible that fusion-evaporation reactions will not be suitable for the discovery of unbibium or heavier elements. Various models predict increasingly short alpha and spontaneous fission half-lives for isotopes with Z = 122 and N ~ 180 on the order of microseconds or less,[17] rendering detection nearly impossible with current equipment.[8] The increasing dominance of spontaneous fission also may sever possible ties to known nuclei of livermorium or oganesson and make identification and confirmation more difficult; a similar problem occurred in the road to confirmation of the decay chain of 294Og which has no anchor to known nuclei.[18] For these reasons, other methods of production may need to be researched such as multi-nucleon transfer reactions capable of populating longer-lived nuclei. A similar switch in experimental technique occurred when hot fusion using 48Ca projectiles was used instead of cold fusion (in which cross sections decrease rapidly with increasing atomic number) to populate elements with Z > 113.[9]

Nevertheless, several fusion-evaporation reactions leading to unbibium have been proposed in addition to those already tried unsuccessfully, though no institution has immediate plans to make synthesis attempts, instead focusing first on elements 119, 120, and possibly 121. Because cross sections increase with asymmetry of the reaction,[9] a chromium beam would be most favorable in combination with a californium target,[8] especially if the predicted closed neutron shell at N = 184 could be reached in more neutron-rich products and confer additional stability. In particular, the reaction between 54Cr and 252Cf would generate the compound nucleus 306Ubb* and reach the shell at N = 184, though the analogous reaction with a 249Cf target is more feasible because of the presence of unwanted fission products from 252Cf and difficulty in accumulating the required amount of target material.[19] One possible synthesis of unbibium could occur as follows:[8]

+ 54
+ 3 1


Should this reaction be successful and alpha decay remain dominant over spontaneous fission, the resultant 300Ubb would decay through 296Ubn which may be populated in cross-bombardment between 249Cf and 50Ti. Although this reaction is one of the most promising options for the synthesis of unbibium in the near future, the maximum cross section is predicted to be 3 fb,[19] one order of magnitude lower than the lowest measured cross section in a successful reaction. The more symmetrical reactions 244Pu + 64Ni and 248Cm + 58Fe[8] have also been proposed and may produce more neutron-rich isotopes. With increasing atomic number, one must also be aware of decreasing fission barrier heights, resulting in lower survival probability of compund nuclei, especially above the predicted magic numbers at Z = 126 and N = 184.[19]

Claimed discovery as a naturally occurring element[edit]

On April 24, 2008, a group led by Amnon Marinov at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem claimed to have found single atoms of unbibium-292 in naturally occurring thorium deposits at an abundance of between 10−11 and 10−12 relative to thorium.[4] This was the first time in sixty-nine years that a new element had been claimed to be discovered in nature, after Marguerite Perey's 1939 discovery of francium.[a] The claim of Marinov et al. was criticized by a part of the scientific community, and Marinov says he has submitted the article to the journals Nature and Nature Physics but both turned it down without sending it for peer review.[20] The unbibium-292 atoms were claimed to be superdeformed or hyperdeformed isomers, with a half-life of at least 100 million years.[5]

A criticism of the technique, previously used in purportedly identifying lighter thorium isotopes by mass spectrometry,[21] was published in Physical Review C in 2008.[22] A rebuttal by the Marinov group was published in Physical Review C after the published comment.[23]

A repeat of the thorium-experiment using the superior method of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) failed to confirm the results, despite a 100-fold better sensitivity.[24] This result throws considerable doubt on the results of the Marinov collaboration with regards to their claims of long-lived isotopes of thorium,[21] roentgenium[25] and unbibium.[4] It is still possible that traces of unbibium might exist in some thorium samples, though given current understanding of superheavy elements, this is very unlikely.[5]


Using Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, unbibium should instead be known as eka-thorium.[26] After the recommendations of the IUPAC in 1979, the element has since been largely referred to as unbibium with the atomic symbol of (Ubb),[27] as its temporary name until the element is officially discovered and synthesized, and a permanent name is decided on. Scientists largely ignore this naming convention, and instead simply refer to unbibium as "element 122" with the symbol of (122), or sometimes even E122 or 122.[28]

Predicted properties[edit]

Nuclear stability and isotopes[edit]

A 2D graph with rectangular cells colored in black-and-white colors, spanning from the llc to the urc, with cells mostly becoming lighter closer to the latter
A chart of nuclide stability as used by the Dubna team in 2010. Characterized isotopes are shown with borders. Beyond element 118 (oganesson, the last known element), the line of known nuclides is expected to rapidly enter a region of instability, with no half-lives over one microsecond after element 121; this poses difficulties in identifying heavier elements such as unbibium. The elliptical region encloses the predicted location of the island of stability.[9]

The stability of nuclei decreases greatly with the increase in atomic number after plutonium, the heaviest primordial element, so that all isotopes with an atomic number above 101 decay radioactively with a half-life under a day, with an exception of dubnium-268. No elements with atomic numbers above 82 (after lead) have stable isotopes.[29] Nevertheless, because of reasons not very well understood yet, there is a slight increased nuclear stability around atomic numbers 110114, which leads to the appearance of what is known in nuclear physics as the "island of stability". This concept, proposed by University of California professor Glenn Seaborg, explains why superheavy elements last longer than predicted.[30]

In this region of the periodic table, N = 184 has been suggested as a closed neutron shell, and various atomic numbers have been proposed as closed proton shells, such as Z = 114, 120, 122, 124, and 126. The island of stability would be characterized by longer half-lives of nuclei located near these magic numbers, though the extent of stabilizing effects is uncertain due to predictions of weakening of the proton shell closures and possible loss of double magicity.[31] More recent research predicts the island of stability to instead be centered at beta-stable copernicium isotopes 291Cn and 293Cn,[9][32] which would place unbibium well above the island and result in short half-lives regardless of shell effects. The increased stability of elements 112-118 has also been attributed to the oblate shape of such nuclei and resistance to spontaneous fission. The same model also proposes 306Ubb as the next spherical doubly magic nucleus, thus defining the true island of stability for spherical nuclei.[33]

Regions of differently shaped nuclei, as predicted by the Interacting Boson Approximation[33]

A quantum tunneling model predicts the alpha-decay half-lives of unbibium isotopes 284-322Ubb to be on the order of microseconds or less for all isotopes lighter than 315Ubb,[34] highlighting a significant challenge in experimental observation of this element. This is consistent with many predictions, though the exact location of the 1 microsecond border varies by model. Additionally, spontaneous fission is expected to become a major decay mode in this region, with half-lives on the order of femtoseconds predicted for some even-even isotopes[17] due to minimal hindrance resulting from nucleon pairing and loss of stabilizing effects farther away from magic numbers.[19] A 2016 calculation on the half-lives and probable decay chains of isotopes 280-339Ubb yields corroborating results: 280-297Ubb will be proton unbound and possibly decay by proton emission, 298-314Ubb will have alpha half-lives on the order of microseconds, and those heavier than 314Ubb will predominantly decay by spontaneous fission with short half-lives.[35] For the lighter alpha-emitters which may be populated in fusion-evaporation reactions, some long decay chains leading down to known or reachable isotopes of lighter elements are predicted. Additionally, the isotopes 308-310Ubb are predicted to have half-lives under 1 microsecond,[17][35] too short for detection as a result of significantly lower binding energy for neutron numbers immediately above the N = 184 shell closure. Alternatively, a second island of stability with total half-lives of approximately 1 second may exist around Z ~ 124 and N ~ 198, though these nuclei will be difficult or impossible to reach using current experimental techniques.[32] However, these predictions are strongly dependent on the chosen nuclear mass models, and it is unknown which isotopes of unbibium will be most stable. Regardless, these nuclei will be hard to synthesize as no combination of obtainable target and projectile can provide enough neutrons in the compound nucleus. Even for nuclei reachable in fusion reactions, spontaneous fission and possibly also cluster decay[36] might have significant branches, posing another hurdle to identification of superheavy elements as they are normally identified by their successive alpha decays.


Unbibium is predicted to be a heavier congener of cerium and thorium and thus to have a similar chemistry to them, although it may be more reactive. Additionally, unbibium is predicted to belong to a new block of valence g-electron atoms, although the g-block's position left of the f-block is speculative[37] and the 5g orbital is not expected to start filling until element 125. The predicted ground-state electron configuration of unbibium is [Og] 7d18s28p1,[1][2] in contrast to the expected [Og] 5g28s2 in which the 5g orbital starts filling at element 121. In the superactinides, relativistic effects might cause a breakdown of the Aufbau principle and create overlapping of the 5g, 6f, 7d and 8p orbitals;[37] experiments on the chemistry of copernicium and flerovium provide strong indications of the increasing role of relativistic effects. As such, the chemistry of elements following unbibium becomes more difficult to predict.

Unbibium would most likely form the dioxide, UbbO2, and tetrahalides, such as UbbF4 and UbbCl4.[2] The main oxidation state is predicted to be IV, similar to cerium and thorium.[5] A first ionization energy of 5.651 eV and second ionization energy of 11.332 eV are predicted for unbibium; this and other calculated ionization energies are lower than the analogous values for thorium, suggesting that the trend of increasing reactivity down the group may indeed continue.[1][3]


  1. ^ Four more elements were discovered after 1939 through synthesis, but were later found to also occur naturally: these were promethium, astatine, neptunium, and plutonium, all of which had been found by 1945.


  1. ^ a b c d e Hoffman, Darleane C.; Lee, Diana M.; Pershina, Valeria (2006). "Transactinides and the future elements". In Morss; Edelstein, Norman M.; Fuger, Jean. The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (3rd ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 1-4020-3555-1.
  2. ^ a b c d Pyykkö, Pekka (2011). "A suggested periodic table up to Z ≤ 172, based on Dirac–Fock calculations on atoms and ions". Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. 13 (1): 161–8. Bibcode:2011PCCP...13..161P. doi:10.1039/c0cp01575j. PMID 20967377.
  3. ^ a b c Eliav, E.; Fritzsche, S.; Kaldor, U. (2015). "Electronic structure theory of the superheavy elements" (pdf). Nuclear Physics A. 944 (December 2015): 518–550. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015.06.017.
  4. ^ a b c Marinov, A.; Rodushkin, I.; Kolb, D.; Pape, A.; Kashiv, Y.; Brandt, R.; Gentry, R. V.; Miller, H. W. (2008). "Evidence for a long-lived superheavy nucleus with atomic mass number A=292 and atomic number Z=~122 in natural Th". International Journal of Modern Physics E. 19: 131. arXiv:0804.3869. Bibcode:2010IJMPE..19..131M. doi:10.1142/S0218301310014662.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h Emsley, John (2011). Nature's Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements (New ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 588. ISBN 978-0-19-960563-7.
  6. ^ Epherre, M.; Stephan, C. (1975). "Les éléments superlourds" (PDF). Le Journal de Physique Colloques (in French). 11 (36): C5–159–164. doi:10.1051/jphyscol:1975541.
  7. ^ Hofmann, Sigurd (2014). On Beyond Uranium: Journey to the End of the Periodic Table. CRC Press. p. 105. ISBN 978-0415284950.
  8. ^ a b c d e f Karpov, A; Zagrebaev, V; Greiner, W (2015). "Superheavy Nuclei: which regions of nuclear map are accessible in the nearest studies" (PDF). Texas A & M University. Retrieved 30 October 2018.
  9. ^ a b c d e Zagrebaev, V.; Karpov, A.; Greiner, W. (2013). "Future of superheavy element research: Which nuclei could be synthesized within the next few years?". Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 20 (012001). arXiv:1207.5700. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/420/1/012001.
  10. ^ see Flerov lab annual reports 2000–2004 inclusive
  11. ^ Greiner, W (2013). "Nuclei: superheavy–superneutronic–strange–and of antimatter" (PDF). Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 413: 012002. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/413/1/012002. Retrieved 30 April 2017.
  12. ^ Oganessian, YT; et al. (2002). "Element 118: results from the first 249
    + 48
    . Communication of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research. Archived from the original on 22 July 2011.
  13. ^ "Livermore scientists team with Russia to discover element 118". Livermore press release. 3 December 2006. Retrieved 18 January 2008.
  14. ^ Oganessian, YT; Abdullin, F; Bailey, PD; et al. "Synthesis of a New Element with Atomic Number 117" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 104 (142502): 142502. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104n2502O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.142502. PMID 20481935.
  15. ^ Roberto, JB (2015). "Actinide Targets for Super-Heavy Element Research" (PDF). Texas A & M University. Retrieved 30 October 2018.
  16. ^ Hagino, Kouichi; Hofmann, Sigurd; Miyatake, Hiroari; Nakahara, Hiromichi (2012). "平成23年度 研究業績レビュー(中間レビュー)の実施について" (PDF). RIKEN. Retrieved 5 May 2017.
  17. ^ a b c Koura, H.; Katakura, J; Tachibana, T; Minato, F (2015). "Chart of the Nuclides". Japan Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 30 October 2018.
  18. ^ Barber, Robert C; Karol, PJ; Nakahara, H; Vardaci, E; Vogt, EW (2011). "Discovery of the elements with atomic numbers greater than or equal to 113 (IUPAC Technical Report)". Pure and Applied Chemistry. 83 (7): 1. doi:10.1351/PAC-REP-10-05-01.
  19. ^ a b c d Ghahramany, N.; Ansari, A. (September 2016). "Synthesis and decay process of superheavy nuclei with Z=119-122 via hot fusion reactions" (PDF). European Physical Journal A. 52 (287). doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16287-6.
  20. ^ Royal Society of Chemistry, "Heaviest element claim criticised", Chemical World.
  21. ^ a b Marinov, A.; Rodushkin, I.; Kashiv, Y.; Halicz, L.; Segal, I.; Pape, A.; Gentry, R. V.; Miller, H. W.; Kolb, D.; Brandt, R. (2007). "Existence of long-lived isomeric states in naturally-occurring neutron-deficient Th isotopes". Phys. Rev. C. 76 (2): 021303(R). arXiv:nucl-ex/0605008. Bibcode:2007PhRvC..76b1303M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.76.021303.
  22. ^ R. C. Barber; J. R. De Laeter (2009). "Comment on "Existence of long-lived isomeric states in naturally-occurring neutron-deficient Th isotopes"". Phys. Rev. C. 79 (4): 049801. Bibcode:2009PhRvC..79d9801B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.79.049801.
  23. ^ A. Marinov; I. Rodushkin; Y. Kashiv; L. Halicz; I. Segal; A. Pape; R. V. Gentry; H. W. Miller; D. Kolb; R. Brandt (2009). "Reply to "Comment on 'Existence of long-lived isomeric states in naturally-occurring neutron-deficient Th isotopes'"". Phys. Rev. C. 79 (4): 049802. Bibcode:2009PhRvC..79d9802M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.79.049802.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  24. ^ J. Lachner; I. Dillmann; T. Faestermann; G. Korschinek; M. Poutivtsev; G. Rugel (2008). "Search for long-lived isomeric states in neutron-deficient thorium isotopes". Phys. Rev. C. 78 (6): 064313. arXiv:0907.0126. Bibcode:2008PhRvC..78f4313L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.78.064313.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  25. ^ Marinov, A.; Rodushkin, I.; Pape, A.; Kashiv, Y.; Kolb, D.; Brandt, R.; Gentry, R. V.; Miller, H. W.; Halicz, L.; Segal, I. (2009). "Existence of Long-Lived Isotopes of a Superheavy Element in Natural Au" (PDF). International Journal of Modern Physics E. World Scientific Publishing Company. 18 (3): 621–629. arXiv:nucl-ex/0702051. Bibcode:2009IJMPE..18..621M. doi:10.1142/S021830130901280X. Retrieved February 12, 2012.
  26. ^ Eliav, Ephraim; Landau, Arie; Ishikawa, Yasuyuki; Kaldor, Uzi (26 March 2002). "Electronic structure of eka-thorium (element 122) compared with thorium". Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics. 35 (7): 1693–1700. doi:10.1088/0953-4075/35/7/307.
  27. ^ Chatt, J. (1979). "Recommendations for the Naming of Elements of Atomic Numbers Greater than 100". Pure Appl. Chem. 51 (2): 381–384. doi:10.1351/pac197951020381.
  28. ^ Haire, Richard G. (2006). "Transactinides and the future elements". In Morss; Edelstein, Norman M.; Fuger, Jean. The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (3rd ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 1724. ISBN 1-4020-3555-1.
  29. ^ Marcillac, Pierre de; Noël Coron; Gérard Dambier; Jacques Leblanc; Jean-Pierre Moalic (April 2003). "Experimental detection of α-particles from the radioactive decay of natural bismuth". Nature. 422 (6934): 876–878. Bibcode:2003Natur.422..876D. doi:10.1038/nature01541. PMID 12712201.
  30. ^ Considine, Glenn D.; Kulik, Peter H. (2002). Van Nostrand's scientific encyclopedia (9 ed.). Wiley-Interscience. ISBN 978-0-471-33230-5. OCLC 223349096.
  31. ^ Koura, H.; Chiba, S. (2013). "Single-Particle Levels of Spherical Nuclei in the Superheavy and Extremely Superheavy Mass Region". Journal of the Physical Society of Japan. 82: 014201. doi:10.7566/JPSJ.82.014201.
  32. ^ a b Palenzuela, Y. M.; Ruiz, L. F.; Karpov, A.; Greiner, W. (2012). "Systematic Study of Decay Properties of Heaviest Elements" (PDF). Physics. 76 (11): 1165–1171. ISSN 1062-8738.
  33. ^ a b Kratz, J. V. (5 September 2011). The Impact of Superheavy Elements on the Chemical and Physical Sciences (PDF). 4th International Conference on the Chemistry and Physics of the Transactinide Elements. Retrieved 27 August 2013.
  34. ^ Chowdhury, R. P.; Samanta, C.; Basu, D.N. (2008). "Nuclear half-lives for α -radioactivity of elements with 100 ≤ Z ≤ 130". Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables. 94 (6): 781–806. arXiv:0802.4161. Bibcode:2008ADNDT..94..781C. doi:10.1016/j.adt.2008.01.003.
  35. ^ a b Santhosh, K.P.; Priyanka, B.; Nithya, C. (2016). "Feasibility of observing the α decay chains from isotopes of SHN with Z = 128, Z = 126, Z = 124 and Z = 122". Nuclear Physics A. 955 (November 2016): 156–180. arXiv:1609.05498. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2016.06.010.
  36. ^ Poenaru, Dorin N.; Gherghescu, R. A.; Greiner, W. (March 2012). "Cluster decay of superheavy nuclei". Physical Review C. 85 (3). Bibcode:2012PhRvC..85c4615P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.85.034615. Retrieved 2 May 2017.
  37. ^ a b Seaborg (c. 2006). "transuranium element (chemical element)". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2010-03-16.

External links[edit]