Dubnium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dubnium, 105Db
General properties

Pronunciation

Mass number
Dubnium in the periodic table
Hydrogen
Lithium Beryllium
Sodium Magnesium
Potassium Calcium Scandium
Rubidium Strontium Yttrium
Caesium Barium Lanthanum Cerium Praseodymium Neodymium Promethium Samarium Europium
Francium Radium Actinium Thorium Protactinium Uranium Neptunium Plutonium Americium
rutherfordium ← dubnium → seaborgium

Atomic number (Z)

Group
Period
Element category
Block
Electron configuration
Electrons per shell
Physical properties
Phase at STP
Density (near r.t.)
Atomic properties
Oxidation states

Ionization energies

Atomic radius
Covalent radius
Miscellanea
 Crystal structure

CAS Number
History
Naming
Discovery
Main isotopes of dubnium

 view
 talk
 edit
| references | in Wikidata
Dubnium is a synthetic chemical element with the symbol Db and atomic
number 105. Dubnium is highly radioactive: the most stable known isotope,
dubnium-268, has a half-life of just over a day. This greatly limits the extent of
research on dubnium.

Dubnium does not occur naturally on Earth and is produced artificially. The
Soviet Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) claimed the first discovery of
the element in 1968, followed by the American Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory in 1970. Both teams proposed their names for the new element and
used them without formal approval. The long-standing dispute was resolved in
1993 by an official investigation of the discovery claims by the IUPAC/IUPAP
Joint Working Party, resulting in credit for the discovery being officially shared
 between both teams. The element was officially named dubnium in 1997 after
the town of Dubna, the site of the JINR.

Theoretical research establishes dubnium as a member of group 5 in the 6d

series of transition metals, placing it under vanadium, niobium, and tantalum.
Dubnium should share most properties, such as its valence electron
configuration and having a dominant +5 oxidation state, with the other group 5
elements, with a few anomalies due to relativistic effects. Limited investigation
of dubnium chemistry has confirmed this. Solution chemistry experiments have
revealed that dubnium often behaves more like niobium rather than tantalum,
breaking periodic trends.

Contents

[hide]

• 1 Discovery

• 1.1 Background

• 1.2 Reports

• 1.3 Naming controversy

• 2 Isotopes

• 3 Predicted properties

• 3.1 Atomic and physical

• 3.2 Chemical

• 4 Experimental chemistry

• 5 Notes

• 6 References
Discovery[edit]
Background[edit]
Uranium, element 92, is the heaviest element to occur significantly in nature;
heavier elements can only be produced practically by synthesis. The first
synthesis of a new element—neptunium, element 93—was achieved in 1940 by
a team of researchers in the United States.[10] In the following years, American
scientists synthesized the elements up to mendelevium, element 101, which
was synthesized in 1955. From element 102, the priority of discoveries was
contested between American and Soviet physicists.[11] Their rivalry resulted in
a race for new elements and credit for their discoveries, later named
the Transfermium Wars.[12]
Reports[edit]

Apparatus at Dubna used for the chemical characterization of elements 104, 105, and 106[13]

The first report of the discovery of element 105 came from the Joint Institute
for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet
Union, in April 1968. The scientists bombarded 243Am with a beam of 22Ne ions,
and reported 9.4 MeV (with a half-life of 0.1–3 seconds) and 9.7 MeV
(t1/2 > 0.05 s) alpha activities followed by alpha activities similar to those of
either 256103 or 257103. Based on prior theoretical predictions, the two activity
lines were assigned to 261105 and 260105, respectively.[14]
243
95Am
+ 22
10Ne
→ 265−x105 + x
n
(x = 4, 5)

After observing the alpha decays of element 105, the researchers aimed to
observe spontaneous fission (SF) of the element and study the resulting fission
fragments. They published a paper in February 1970, reporting multiple
examples of two such activities, with half-lives of 14 ms and 2.2±0.5 s. They
assigned the former activity to 242mfAm[a] and ascribed the latter activity to an
isotope of element 105. They suggested that it was unlikely that this activity
could come from a transfer reaction instead of element 105, because the yield
ratio for this reaction was significantly lower than that of the 242mfAm-producing
transfer reaction, in accordance with theoretical predictions. To establish that
this activity was not from a (22Ne,xn) reaction, the researchers bombarded
a 243Am target with 18O ions; reactions producing 256103 and 257103 showed
very little SF activity (matching the established data), and the reaction
producing heavier 258103 and 259103 produced no SF activity at all, in line with
theoretical data. The researchers concluded that the activities observed came
from SF of element 105.[14]
In April 1970, a team at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL),
in Berkeley, California, United States, claimed to have synthesized element 105
by bombarding californium-249 with nitrogen-15 ions, with an alpha activity of
9.1 MeV. To ensure this activity was not from a different reaction, the team
attempted other reactions: bombarding 249Cf with 14N, Pb with 15N, and Hg
with 15N. They stated no such activity was found in those reactions. The
characteristics of the daughter nuclei matched those of 256103, implying that
the parent nuclei were of 260105.[14]
249
98Cf
+ 15
7N
→ 260105 + 4
n

These results did not confirm the JINR findings regarding the 9.4 MeV or
9.7 MeV alpha decay of 260105, leaving only 261105 as a possibly produced
isotope.[14]
JINR then attempted another experiment to create element 105, published in a
report in May 1970. They claimed that they had synthesized more nuclei of
element 105 and that the experiment confirmed their previous work. According
to the paper, the isotope produced by JINR was probably 261105, or
possibly 260105.[14] This report included an initial chemical examination: the
thermal gradient version of the gas-chromatography method was applied to
demonstrate that the chloride of what had formed from the SF activity nearly
matched that of niobium pentachloride, rather than hafnium tetrachloride. The
team identified a 2.2-second SF activity in a volatile chloride portraying eka-
tantalum properties, and inferred that the source of the SF activity must have
been element 105.[14]
In June 1970, JINR made improvements on their first experiment, using a purer
target and reducing the intensity of transfer reactions by installing
a collimator before the catcher. This time, they were able to find 9.1 MeV alpha
activities with daughter isotopes identifiable as either 256103 or 257103,
implying that the original isotope was
either 260105 or 261105.[14]
Naming controversy[edit]
Danish nuclear physicist Niels Bohr and German nuclear
chemist Otto Hahn
JINR did not propose a name after their first report claiming synthesis of
element 105, which would have been the usual practice. This led LBL to believe
that JINR did not have enough experimental data to back their claim.[15] After
collecting more data, JINR proposed the name nielsbohrium (Ns) in honor of the
Danish nuclear physicist Niels Bohr, a founder of the theories of atomic
structure and quantum theory. When LBL first announced their synthesis of
element 105, they proposed that the new element be named hahnium (Ha)
after the German chemist Otto Hahn, the "father of nuclear chemistry", thus
creating an element naming controversy.[16]
In the early 1970s, both teams reported synthesis of the next element, element
106, but did not suggest names.[17] JINR suggested establishing an
international committee to clarify the discovery criteria. This proposal was
accepted in 1974 and a neutral joint group formed.[18] Neither team showed
interest in resolving the conflict through a third party, so the leading scientists
of LBL—Albert Ghiorso and Glenn Seaborg—traveled to Dubna in 1975 and met
with the leading scientists of JINR—Georgy Flerov, Yuri Oganessian, and others
— to try to resolve the conflict internally and render the neutral joint group
unnecessary; after two hours of discussions, this failed.[19] The joint neutral
group never assembled to assess the claims and the conflict remained
unsolved.[18] In 1979, IUPAC suggested systematic element names to be used
as placeholders until permanent names were established; under it, element
105 would be unnilpentium, from the Latin roots un- and nil- and the Greek
root pent- (meaning "one", "zero", and "five", respectively, the digits of the
atomic number). Both teams ignored it as they did not wish to weaken their
outstanding claims.[20]
In 1981, the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI; Society for Heavy Ion
Research) in Darmstadt, West Germany, claimed synthesis of element 107;
their report came out five years after the first report from JINR but with greater
precision, making a more solid claim on discovery.[14] GSI acknowledged JINR's
efforts by suggesting the name nielsbohrium for the new element.[18] JINR did
not suggest a new name for element 105, stating it was more important to
determine its discoverers first.[18]
Dubna
Location of Dubna within European Russia

In 1985, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and
the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) formed a Joint
Working Party (JWP) to assess discoveries and establish final names for the
controversial elements.[14] The party held meetings with delegates from the
three competing institutes; in 1990, they established criteria on recognition of
an element, and in 1991, they finished the work on assessing discoveries, and
disbanded. These results were published in 1993. According to the report, the
first definitely successful experiment was the April 1970 LBL experiment,
closely followed by the June 1970 JINR experiment, so credit for the discovery
of the element should be shared between the two teams.[14]
LBL said that the input from JINR was overrated in the review. They claimed
JINR was only able to unambiguously demonstrate the synthesis of element
105 a year after they did. JINR and GSI endorsed the report.[18]
In 1994, IUPAC published a recommendation on naming the disputed elements.
For element 105, they proposed joliotium (Jl) after the French physicist Frédéric
Joliot-Curie, a contributor to the development of nuclear physics and chemistry;
this name was originally proposed by the Soviet team for element 102, which
by then had long been called nobelium.[21] This recommendation was criticized
by the American scientists for several reasons. Firstly, their suggestions were
scrambled: the names rutherfordium and hahnium, originally suggested by
Berkeley for elements 104 and 105, were respectively reassigned to elements
106 and 108. Secondly, elements 104 and 105 were given names favored by
JINR, despite earlier recognition of LBL as an equal co-discoverer for both of
them. Thirdly and most importantly, IUPAC rejected the name seaborgium for
element 106, having just approved a rule that an element could not be named
after a living person, even though the 1993 report had given the LBL team the
sole credit for its discovery.[22]
In 1995, IUPAC abandoned the controversial rule and established a committee
of national representatives aimed at finding a compromise. They
suggested seaborgium for element 106 in exchange for the removal of all the
other American proposals, except for the established name lawrencium for
element 103. The equally entrenched name nobelium for element 102 was
replaced by flerovium after Georgy Flerov, following the recognition by the
1993 report that that element had been first synthesized in Dubna. This was
rejected by American scientists and the decision was retracted.[23][3] The
name flerovium was later used for element 114.[24]
In 1996, IUPAC held another meeting, reconsidered all names in hand, and
accepted another set of recommendations; it was approved and published in
1997.[25] Element 105 was named dubnium (Db), after Dubna in Russia, the
location of the JINR; the American suggestions were used for elements 102,
103, 104, and 106. The name dubnium had been used for element 104 in the
previous IUPAC recommendation. The American scientists "reluctantly"
approved this decision.[26] IUPAC pointed out that the Berkeley laboratory had
already been recognized several times, in the naming of berkelium, californium,
and americium, and that the acceptance of the
names rutherfordium and seaborgium for elements 104 and 106 should be
offset by recognizing JINR's contributions to the discovery of elements 104,
105, and 106.[27]

Isotopes[edit]
Main article: Isotopes of dubnium

A chart of nuclide stability as used by JINR in 2012. Characterized isotopes are shown with borders. [28]

Dubnium, having an atomic number of 105, is a superheavy element; like all

elements with such high atomic numbers, it is very unstable. The longest-
lasting known isotope of dubnium, 268Db, has a half-life of around a day.[29] No
stable isotopes have been seen, and a 2012 calculation by JINR suggested that
the half-lives of all dubnium isotopes would not significantly exceed a day.[28]
[b] Dubnium can only be obtained by artificial production.[c]
The short half-life of dubnium limits experimentation. This is exacerbated by
the fact that the most stable isotopes are the hardest to synthesize.
[32] Elements with a lower atomic number have stable isotopes with a lower
neutron-to-proton ratio than those with higher atomic number, meaning that
the target and beam nuclei that could be employed to create the superheavy
element have fewer neutrons than needed to form these most stable isotopes.
(Different techniques based on rapid neutron capture and transfer reactions are
being considered as of the 2010s, but those based on the collision of a large
and small nucleus still dominate research in the area.)[33][34]
Only a few atoms of 268Db can be produced in each experiment, and thus the
measured lifetimes vary significantly during the process. During three
experiments, 23 atoms were created in total, with a resulting half-life of 28+11
−4 hours.[35] The second most stable isotope, 270Db, has been produced in even
smaller quantities: three atoms in total, with lifetimes of 33.4 h,[36] 1.3 h, and
1.6 h.[37] These two are the heaviest isotopes of dubnium to date, and both
were produced as a result of decay of the heavier nuclei 288Mc and 294Ts rather
than directly, because the experiments that yielded them were originally
designed in Dubna for 48Ca beams.[38] For its mass, 48Ca has by far the greatest
neutron excess of all practically stable nuclei, both quantitative and relative,
 which correspondingly helps synthesize superheavy nuclei with more
[29]
neutrons, but this gain is compensated by the decreased likelihood of fusion for
high atomic numbers.[39]

Predicted properties[edit]
According to the periodic law, dubnium should belong to group 5,
with vanadium, niobium, and tantalum. Several studies have investigated the
properties of element 105 and found that they generally agreed with the
predictions of periodic law. Significant deviations may nevertheless occur, due
to relativistic effects,[d] which dramatically change physical properties on both
atomic and macroscopic scales. These properties have remained challenging to
measure for several reasons: the difficulties of production of superheavy
atoms, the low rates of production, which only allows for microscopic scales,
requirements for a radiochemistry laboratory to test the atoms, short half-lives
of those atoms, and the presence of many unwanted activities apart from those
of synthesis of superheavy atoms. So far, studies have only been performed on
single atoms.[3]
Atomic and physical[edit]

Relativistic (solid line) and nonrelativistic (dashed line) radial distribution of the 7s valence electrons in
dubnium.

A direct relativistic effect is that as the atomic numbers of elements increase,

the innermost electrons begin to revolve faster around the nucleus as a result
of an increase of electromagnetic attraction between an electron and a
nucleus. Similar effects have been found for the outermost s orbitals (and
p1/2 ones, though in dubnium they are not occupied): for example, the 7s
orbital contracts by 25% in size and is stabilized by 2.6 eV.[3]
A more indirect effect is that the contracted s and p1/2 orbitals shield the charge
of the nucleus more effectively, leaving less for the outer d and f electrons,
which therefore move in larger orbitals. Dubnium is greatly affected by this:
unlike the previous group 5 members, its 7s electrons are slightly more difficult
to extract than its 6d electrons.[3]
 Relativistic stabilization of the ns orbitals, the destabilization of the (n-1)d orbitals and their spin–orbit
splitting for the group 5 elements.

Another effect is the spin–orbit interaction, particularly spin–orbit splitting,

which splits the 6d subshell—the azimuthal quantum number ℓ of a d shell is 2
—into two subshells, with four of the ten orbitals having their ℓ lowered to 3/2
and six raised to 5/2. All ten energy levels are raised; four of them are lower
than the other six. (The three 6d electrons normally occupy the lowest energy
levels, 6d3/2.)[3]
A singly ionized atom of dubnium (Db+) should lose a 6d electron compared to
a neutral atom; the doubly (Db2+) or triply (Db3+) ionized atoms of dubnium
should eliminate 7s electrons, unlike its lighter homologs. Despite the changes,
dubnium is still expected to have five valence electrons; 7p energy levels have
not been shown to influence dubnium and its properties. As the 6d orbitals of
dubnium are more destabilized than the 5d ones of tantalum, and Db3+ is
expected to have two 6d, rather than 7s, electrons remaining, the resulting +3
oxidation state is expected to be unstable and even rarer than that of
tantalum. The ionization potential of dubnium in its maximum +5 oxidation
state should be slightly lower than that of tantalum and the ionic radius of
dubnium should increase compared to tantalum; this has a significant effect on
dubnium's chemistry.[3]
Atoms of dubnium in the solid state should arrange themselves in a body-
centered cubic configuration, like the previous group 5 elements.[4] The
predicted density of dubnium is 29 g/cm3.[3]
Chemical[edit]

Relativistic (rel) and nonrelativistic (nr) values of the effective charge (Q M) and overlap population (OP)
in MCl5, where M = V, Nb, Ta, and Db

Computational chemistry is simplest in gas-phase chemistry, in which

interactions between molecules may be ignored as negligible. Multiple
authors[3] have researched dubnium pentachloride; calculations show it to be
consistent with the periodic laws by exhibiting the properties of a compound of
a group 5 element. For example, the molecular orbital levels indicate that
dubnium uses three 6d electron levels as expected. Compared to its tantalum
analog, dubnium pentachloride is expected to show
increased covalent character: a decrease in the effective charge on an atom
and an increase in the overlap population (between orbitals of dubnium and
chlorine).[3]
Calculations of solution chemistry indicate that the maximum oxidation state of
dubnium, +5, will be more stable than those of niobium and tantalum and the
+3 and +4 states will be less stable. The tendency towards hydrolysis of
cations with the highest oxidation state should continue to decrease within
group 5 but is still expected to be quite rapid. Complexation of dubnium is
expected to follow group 5 trends in its richness. Calculations for hydroxo-
chlorido- complexes have shown a reversal in the trends of complex formation
and extraction of group 5 elements, with dubnium being more prone to do so
than tantalum.[3]

Experimental chemistry[edit]
Experimental results of the chemistry of dubnium date back to 1974 and 1976.
JINR researchers used a thermochromatographic system and concluded that
the volatility of dubnium bromide was less than that of niobium bromide and
about the same as that of hafnium bromide. It is not certain that the detected
fission products confirmed that the parent was indeed element 105. These
results may imply that dubnium behaves more like hafnium than niobium.[3]
The next studies on the chemistry of dubnium were conducted in 1988, in
Berkeley. They examined whether the most stable oxidation state of dubnium
in aqueous solution was +5. Dubnium was fumed twice and washed with
concentrated nitric acid; sorption of dubnium on glass cover slips was then
compared with that of the group 5 elements niobium and tantalum and the
group 4 elements zirconium and hafnium produced under similar conditions.
The group 5 elements are known to sorb on glass surfaces; the group 4
elements do not. Dubnium was confirmed as a group 5 member. Surprisingly,
the behavior on extraction from mixed nitric and hydrofluoric acid solution
into methyl isobutyl ketone differed between dubnium, tantalum, and niobium.
Dubnium did not extract and its behavior resembled niobium more closely than
tantalum, indicating that complexing behavior could not be predicted purely
from simple extrapolations of trends within a group in the periodic table.[3]
This prompted further exploration of the chemical behavior of complexes of
dubnium. Various labs jointly conducted thousands of repetitive
chromatographic experiments between 1988 and 1993. All group 5 elements
and protactinium were extracted from concentrated hydrochloric acid; after
mixing with lower concentrations of hydrogen chloride, small amounts of
hydrogen fluoride were added to start selective re-extraction. Dubnium showed
behavior different from that of tantalum but similar to that of niobium and its
pseudohomolog protactinium at concentrations of hydrogen chloride below
12 moles per liter. This similarity to the two elements suggested that the
formed complex was either DbOX−
4 or [Db(OH)
2X
4]−
. After extraction experiments of dubnium from hydrogen
bromide into diisobutyl carbinol(2,6-dimethylheptan-4-ol), a specific extractant
for protactinium, with subsequent elutions with the hydrogen chloride/hydrogen
fluoride mix as well as hydrogen chloride, dubnium was found to be less prone
to extraction than either protactinium or niobium. This was explained as an
increasing tendency to form non‐extractable complexes of multiple negative
charges. Further experiments in 1992 confirmed the stability of the +5 state:
Db(V) was shown to be extractable from cation‐exchange columns with α‐
hydroxyisobutyrate, like the group 5 elements and protactinium; Db(III) and
Db(IV) were not. In 1998 and 1999, new predictions suggested that dubnium
would extract nearly as well as niobium and better than tantalum from halide
solutions, which was later confirmed.[3]
The first isothermal gas chromatography experiments were performed in 1992
with 262Db (half-life 35 seconds). The volatilities for niobium and tantalum were
similar within error limits, but dubnium appeared to be significantly less
volatile. It was postulated that traces of oxygen in the system might have led
to formation of DbOBr
3, which was predicted to be less volatile than DbBr
5. Later experiments in 1996 showed that group 5 chlorides were more volatile
than the corresponding bromides, with the exception of tantalum, presumably
due to formation of TaOCl
3. Later volatility studies of chlorides of dubnium and niobium as a function of
controlled partial pressures of oxygen showed that formation of oxychlorides
and general volatility are dependent on concentrations of oxygen. The
oxychlorides were shown to be less volatile than the chlorides.[3]
In 2004–05, researchers from Dubna and Livermore identified a new dubnium
isotope, 268Db, as a fivefold alpha decay product of the newly created element
115. This new isotope proved to be long-lived enough to allow further chemical
experimentation, with a half-life of over a day. In the 2004 experiment, a thin
layer with dubnium was removed from the surface of the target and dissolved
in aqua regia with tracers and a lanthanum carrier, from which various +3, +4,
and +5 species were precipitated on adding ammonium hydroxide. The
precipitate was washed and dissolved in hydrochloric acid, where it converted
to nitrate form and was then dried on a film and counted. Mostly containing a
+5 species, which was immediately assigned to dubnium, it also had a +4
species; based on that result, the team decided that additional chemical
separation was needed. In 2005, the experiment was repeated, with the final
product being hydroxide rather than nitrate precipitate, which was processed
further in both Livermore (based on reverse phase chromatography) and Dubna
(based on anion exchange chromatography). The +5 species was effectively
isolated; dubnium appeared three times in tantalum-only fractions and never in
niobium-only fractions. It was noted that these experiments were insufficient to
draw conclusions about the general chemical profile of dubnium. [40]
In 2009, at the JAEA tandem accelerator in Japan, dubnium was processed in
nitric and hydrofluoric acid solution, at concentrations where niobium
forms NbOF−
4 and tantalum forms TaF−
6. Dubnium's behavior was close to that of niobium but not tantalum; it was
thus deduced that dubnium formed DbOF−
 4. From the available information, it was concluded that dubnium often behaved
like niobium, sometimes like protactinium, but rarely like tantalum.[41]

Notes[edit]
1. Jump up^ This notation signifies that the nucleus is a nuclear isomer that decays via spontaneous
fission.

2. Jump up^ The current experimental value is 28+11

−4 hours for 268Db, but the statistical law of large numbers, on which the determination of half-lives relies,
cannot be directly applied due to a very limited number of experiments (decays). The range of
uncertainty is an indication that the half-life period lies within this range with 95% probability.
3. Jump up^ The modern theory of the atomic nucleus does not suggest a long-lived isotope of dubnium,
but claims were made in the past that unknown isotopes of superheavy elements existed primordially on
the Earth: for example, such a claim was raised for 267108 of a half-life of 400 to 500 million years in
1963[30] or 292122 of a half-life of over 100 million years in 2009; [31] neither claim gained acceptance.
4. Jump up^ Relativistic effects arise when an object moves at velocities comparable to the speed of light;
in heavy atoms, the quickly moving objects are electrons revolving around the nucleus.

References[edit]
1. Jump up^ "Dubnium". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved March 24, 2018.

2. Jump up^ "Dubnium". Oxford Dictionaries: English. Retrieved March 24,2018.

3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Hoffman, D. C.; Lee, D. M.; Pershina, V. (2006).

"Transactinides and the future elements". In Morss, L.R.; Edelstein, N. M.; Fuger, Jean. The Chemistry of
the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (3rd ed.). Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 1652–
1752. ISBN 978-1-4020-3555-5.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Östlin, A.; Vitos, L. (2011). "First-principles calculation of the structural stability of 6d
transition metals". Physical Review
B. 84 (11). Bibcode:2011PhRvB..84k3104O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.84.113104.
5. ^ Jump up to:a b Fricke, B. (1975). "Superheavy elements: a prediction of their chemical and physical
properties". Recent Impact of Physics on Inorganic Chemistry. 21: 89–
144. doi:10.1007/BFb0116498. Archived from the original on October 4, 2013. Retrieved October 4, 2013.
6. Jump up^ "Dubnium". Royal Chemical Society. Retrieved October 9,2017.

7. Jump up^ Münzenberg, G.; Gupta, M. (2011). "Production and Identification of Transactinide Elements":
877. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0720-2_19.

8. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e "Six New Isotopes of the Superheavy Elements Discovered". Berkeley Lab.
2010. Archived from the original on May 5, 2014. Retrieved October 9, 2017.
9. Jump up^ Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Abdullin, F. Sh.; Bailey, P. D.; et al. (2010). "Synthesis of a New Element
with Atomic Number Z=117". Physical Review Letters. American Physical
Society. 104(142502). Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104n2502O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.142502. PMID 2048
1935. Archived from the original on October 18, 2016.

10.Jump up^ Choppin, G. R.; Liljenzin, J.-O.; Rydberg, J. (2002). Radiochemistry and Nuclear
Chemistry. Elsevier. p. 416. ISBN 978-0-7506-7463-8.

11.Jump up^ Hoffman, D. C. (1996). The Transuranium Elements: From Neptunium and Plutonium to
Element 112 (PDF) (Report). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Retrieved October 10,2017.

12.Jump up^ Rothstein, L. (1995). "The Transfermium Wars". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 51 (1):
5. ISSN 0096-3402.
13.Jump up^ Zvara, I. J. (2003). "Dubnium". Chemical and Engineering News. 81 (36). Retrieved October
9, 2017.

14.^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j Barber, Robert C; Greenwood, N. N; Hrynkiewicz, A. Z; Jeannin, Y. P; Lefort,

M; Sakai, M; Ulehla, I; Wapstra, A. H; Wilkinson, D. H (1993). "Discovery of the Transfermium
elements" (PDF). Pure and Applied Chemistry. 65 (8): 1757. doi:10.1351/pac199365081757.
Retrieved September 7, 2016.
15.Jump up^ "Dubnium | chemical element". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved March 25, 2018.
16.Jump up^ Fontani, M.; Costa, M.; Orna, M. V. (2014). The Lost Elements: The Periodic Table's Shadow
Side. Oxford University Press. p. 386. ISBN 978-0-19-938335-1. Archived from the original on February 27,
2018.

17.Jump up^ Hoffmann, K. (1987). Можно ли сделать золото? Мошенники, обманщики и ученые в
истории химических элементов [Can one make gold? Swindlers, deceivers and scientists from the
history of the chemical elements] (in Russian). Nauka. pp. 180–181. Translation from Hoffmann, K.
(1979). Kann man Gold machen? Gauner, Gaukler und Gelehrte. Aus der Geschichte der chemischen
Elemente [Can one make gold? Swindlers, deceivers and scientists. From the history of the chemical
elements] (in German). Urania.

18.^ Jump up to:a b c d e Ghiorso, Albert; Seaborg, G. T; Organessian, Yu. Ts; Zvara, I; Armbruster, P;
Hessberger, F. P; Hofmann, S; Leino, M; Munzenberg, G; Reisdorf, W; Schmidt, K.-H (1993). "Responses on
the report 'Discovery of the Transfermium elements' followed by reply to the responses by Transfermium
Working Group"(PDF). Pure and Applied Chemistry. 65 (8): 1815–
1824. doi:10.1351/pac199365081815. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 25, 2013.
Retrieved September 7, 2016.
19.Jump up^ Robinson, A. (2017). "An Attempt to Solve the Controversies Over Elements 104 and 105: A
Meeting in Russia, 23 September 1975". Bulletin of the American Physical Society. 62 (1). Archived from
the original on September 22, 2017. Retrieved October 14, 2017.

20.Jump up^ Öhrström, L.; Holden, N. E. (2016). "The Three-letter Element Symbols:". Chemistry
International. 38 (2). doi:10.1515/ci-2016-0204. ISSN 1365-2192. Archived from the original on
September 20, 2016.

21.Jump up^ "Names and symbols of transfermium elements (IUPAC Recommendations 1994)" (PDF). Pure
and Applied Chemistry. 66 (12): 2419–2421. 1994. doi:10.1351/pac199466122419. Archived (PDF) from
the original on September 22, 2017. Retrieved September 7, 2016.

22.Jump up^ Yarris, L. (1994). "Naming of element 106 disputed by international committee".
Retrieved September 7, 2016.

23.Jump up^ Hoffman, D. C.; Ghiorso, A.; Seaborg, G. T. (2000). The Transuranium People: The Inside Story.
World Scientific. pp. 389–394. ISBN 978-1-78326-244-1.

24.Jump up^ Loss, R. D.; Corish, J. (2012). "Names and symbols of the elements with atomic numbers 114
and 116 (IUPAC Recommendations 2012)" (PDF). Pure and Applied Chemistry. 84 (7): 1669–
72. doi:10.1351/PAC-REC-11-12-03. Retrieved 21 April 2018.

25.Jump up^ Bera, J. K. (1999). "Names of the Heavier Elements". Resonance. 4 (3):
53. doi:10.1007/BF02838724.

26.Jump up^ Hoffman, D. C.; Ghiorso, A.; Seaborg, G. T. (2000). The Transuranium People: The Inside Story.
Imperial College Press. pp. 369–399. ISBN 978-1-86094-087-3.

27.Jump up^ "Names and symbols of transfermium elements (IUPAC Recommendations 1997)". Pure and
Applied Chemistry. 69 (12): 2471. 1997. doi:10.1351/pac199769122471.
28.^ Jump up to:a b Karpov, A. V.; Zagrebaev, V. I.; Palenzuela, Y. M.; Greiner, W. (2013). "Superheavy Nuclei:
Decay and Stability". In Greiner, W. Exciting Interdisciplinary Physics. FIAS Interdisciplinary Science Series.
Springer International Publishing. pp. 69–79. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00047-3_6. ISBN 978-3-319-00046-6.
29.^ Jump up to:a b Audi, G.; Kondev, F. G.; Wang, M.; et al. (2012). "The NUBASE2012 evaluation of nuclear
properties" (PDF). Chinese Physics C. 36 (12): 1157–
1286. Bibcode:2012ChPhC..36....1A. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/36/12/001. Archived from the original(PDF) on
July 6, 2016.
30.Jump up^ Emsley, J. (2011). Nature's Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements (New ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press. pp. 215–217. ISBN 978-0-19-960563-7.

31.Jump up^ Marinov, A.; Rodushkin, I.; Kolb, D.; et al. (2008). Evidence for a long-lived superheavy nucleus
with atomic mass number A=292 and atomic number Z=~122 in natural Th. arXiv:0804.3869 
. Bibcode:2010IJMPE..19..131M. doi:10.1142/S0218301310014662.

32.Jump up^ Karpov, A. V.; Zagrebaev, V. I.; Palenzuela, Y. M.; et al. (2013). "Superheavy Nuclei: Decay and
Stability". Exciting Interdisciplinary Physics. FIAS Interdisciplinary Science Series. p. 69. doi:10.1007/978-
3-319-00047-3_6. ISBN 978-3-319-00046-6.

33.Jump up^ Botvina, Al.; Mishustin, I.; Zagrebaev, V.; et al. (2010). "Possibility of synthesizing superheavy
elements in nuclear explosions". International Journal of Modern Physics E. 19 (10): 2063–

2075. arXiv:1006.4738  . Bibcode:2010IJMPE..19.2063B. doi:10.1142/S0218301310016521. ISSN 0218-

3013.

34.Jump up^ Wuenschel, S.; Hagel, K.; Barbui, M.; et al. (2018). "An experimental survey of the production
of alpha decaying heavy elements in the reactions of 238U +232Th at 7.5-6.1
MeV/nucleon" (PDF). arXiv:1802.03091  .
35.Jump up^ Stoyer, N. J.; Landrum, J. H.; Wilk, P. A.; et al. (2007). "Chemical Identification of a Long-Lived
Isotope of Dubnium, a Descendant of Element 115". Nuclear Physics A. Proceedings of the Ninth
International Conference on Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions. 787 (1): 388–
395. Bibcode:2007NuPhA.787..388S. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.12.060.

36.Jump up^ Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Abdullin, F. Sh.; Bailey, P. D.; et al. (2010). "Synthesis of a New Element
with Atomic Number Z=117". Physical Review Letters. 104 (14):
142502. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104n2502O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.142502. ISSN 1079-7114. PMID 2
0481935. Archived from the original on December 19, 2016.

37.Jump up^ Khuyagbaatar, J.; Yakushev, A.; Düllmann, Ch. E.; et al. (2014). "48Ca + 249Bk Fusion Reaction
Leading to Element Z = 117: Long-Lived α-Decaying 270Db and Discovery of 266Lr". Physical Review
J
Letters. 112 (17):
172501. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112q2501K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.172501. PMID 24836239.
u
38.Jump up^ Wills, S.; Berger, L. (2011). "Science Magazine Podcast. Transcript, 9 September 2011" (PDF).
m
Science. Archived(PDF) from the original on October 18, 2016. Retrieved October 12, 2016.
p
39.JJump up^ Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Sobiczewski, A.; Ter-Akopian, G. M. (2017). "Superheavy nuclei: from
ut
prediction to discovery". Physica Scripta. 92 (2): 1–21. doi:10.1088/1402-4896/aa53c1.

40.moJump up^ Stoyer, N. J.; Landrum, J. H.; Wilk, P. A.; et al. (2006). Chemical Identification of a Long-Lived
pIsotope of Dubnium, a Descendant of Element 115 (PDF) (Report). IX International Conference on Nucleus
nNucleus Collisions. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 31, 2017. Retrieved October 9, 2017.
ta
41.Jump up^ Nagame, Y.; Kratz, J. V.; Schädel, M. (2016). "Chemical properties of rutherfordium (Rf) and
ov
dubnium (Db) in the aqueous phase". EPJ Web of Conferences. 131:
i
07007. doi:10.1051/epjconf/201613107007. ISSN 2100-014X.
sg
ea
at
ri
co
hn