Moscovium

"Element 115" redirects here. For fictional and conspiracy references to element 115, see Materials science in science fiction.

Moscovium is a synthetic chemical element; it has symbol Mc and atomic number 115. It was first synthesized in 2003 by a joint team of Russian and American scientists at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Russia. In December 2015, it was recognized as one of four new elements by the Joint Working Party of international scientific bodies IUPAC and IUPAP. On 28 November 2016, it was officially named after the Moscow Oblast, in which the JINR is situated.^[8][9][10]

Moscovium, ₁₁₅Mc

Moscovium
Pronunciation	/mɒˈskoʊviəm/ ​(mos-SKOH-vee-əm)
Mass number	[290]
Moscovium 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 Bi ↑ Mc ↓ (Uhe) flerovium ← moscovium → livermorium
Atomic number (Z)	115
Group	group 15 (pnictogens)
Period	period 7
Block	p-block
Electron configuration	[Rn] 5f^14 6d^10 7s^2 7p^3 (predicted)^[1]
Electrons per shell	2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 5 (predicted)
Physical properties
Phase at STP	solid (predicted)^[1]
Melting point	670 K ​(400 °C, ​750 °F) (predicted)^[1]^[2]
Boiling point	~1400 K ​(~1100 °C, ​~2000 °F) (predicted)^[1]
Density (near r.t.)	13.5 g/cm^3 (predicted)^[2]
Heat of fusion	5.90–5.98 kJ/mol (extrapolated)^[3]
Heat of vaporization	138 kJ/mol (predicted)^[2]
Atomic properties
Oxidation states	(+1), (+3) (predicted)^[1]^[2]
Ionization energies	1st: 538.3 kJ/mol (predicted)^[4] 2nd: 1760 kJ/mol (predicted)^[2] 3rd: 2650 kJ/mol (predicted)^[2] (more)
Atomic radius	empirical: 187 pm (predicted)^[1]^[2]
Covalent radius	156–158 pm (extrapolated)^[3]
Other properties
Natural occurrence	synthetic
CAS Number	54085-64-2
History
Naming	After Moscow region
Discovery	Joint Institute for Nuclear Research and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (2003)
Isotopes of moscovium v e
Main isotopes Decay abun­dance half-life (t1/2) mode pro­duct ^286Mc synth 20 ms^[5] α ^282Nh ^287Mc synth 38 ms α ^283Nh ^288Mc synth 193 ms α ^284Nh ^289Mc synth 250 ms^[6]^[7] α ^285Nh ^290Mc synth 650 ms^[6]^[7] α ^286Nh
Category: Moscovium view talk edit | references

Moscovium is an extremely radioactive element: its most stable known isotope, moscovium-290, has a half-life of only 0.65 seconds.^[7] In the periodic table, it is a p-block transactinide element. It is a member of the 7th period and is placed in group 15 as the heaviest pnictogen, although it has not been confirmed to behave as a heavier homologue of the pnictogen bismuth. Moscovium is calculated to have some properties similar to its lighter homologues, nitrogen, phosphorus, arsenic, antimony, and bismuth, and to be a post-transition metal, although it should also show several major differences from them. In particular, moscovium should also have significant similarities to thallium, as both have one rather loosely bound electron outside a quasi-closed shell. Over a hundred atoms of moscovium have been observed to date, all of which have been shown to have mass numbers from 286 to 290.

Introduction

This section is an excerpt from Superheavy element § Introduction.[edit]

Synthesis of superheavy nuclei

 

A graphic depiction of a nuclear fusion reaction. Two nuclei fuse into one, emitting a neutron. Reactions that created new elements to this moment were similar, with the only possible difference that several singular neutrons sometimes were released, or none at all.

A superheavy^[a] atomic nucleus is created in a nuclear reaction that combines two other nuclei of unequal size^[b] into one; roughly, the more unequal the two nuclei in terms of mass, the greater the possibility that the two react.^[16] The material made of the heavier nuclei is made into a target, which is then bombarded by the beam of lighter nuclei. Two nuclei can only fuse into one if they approach each other closely enough; normally, nuclei (all positively charged) repel each other due to electrostatic repulsion. The strong interaction can overcome this repulsion but only within a very short distance from a nucleus; beam nuclei are thus greatly accelerated in order to make such repulsion insignificant compared to the velocity of the beam nucleus.^[17] The energy applied to the beam nuclei to accelerate them can cause them to reach speeds as high as one-tenth of the speed of light. However, if too much energy is applied, the beam nucleus can fall apart.^[17]

Coming close enough alone is not enough for two nuclei to fuse: when two nuclei approach each other, they usually remain together for approximately 10⁻²⁰ seconds and then part ways (not necessarily in the same composition as before the reaction) rather than form a single nucleus.^[17][18] This happens because during the attempted formation of a single nucleus, electrostatic repulsion tears apart the nucleus that is being formed.^[17] Each pair of a target and a beam is characterized by its cross section—the probability that fusion will occur if two nuclei approach one another expressed in terms of the transverse area that the incident particle must hit in order for the fusion to occur.^[c] This fusion may occur as a result of the quantum effect in which nuclei can tunnel through electrostatic repulsion. If the two nuclei can stay close for past that phase, multiple nuclear interactions result in redistribution of energy and an energy equilibrium.^[17]

External videos
Visualization of unsuccessful nuclear fusion, based on calculations from the Australian National University^[20]

The resulting merger is an excited state^[21]—termed a compound nucleus—and thus it is very unstable.^[17] To reach a more stable state, the temporary merger may fission without formation of a more stable nucleus.^[22] Alternatively, the compound nucleus may eject a few neutrons, which would carry away the excitation energy; if the latter is not sufficient for a neutron expulsion, the merger would produce a gamma ray. This happens in approximately 10⁻¹⁶ seconds after the initial nuclear collision and results in creation of a more stable nucleus.^[22] The definition by the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP) states that a chemical element can only be recognized as discovered if a nucleus of it has not decayed within 10⁻¹⁴ seconds. This value was chosen as an estimate of how long it takes a nucleus to acquire its outer electrons and thus display its chemical properties.^[23][d]

Decay and detection

The beam passes through the target and reaches the next chamber, the separator; if a new nucleus is produced, it is carried with this beam.^[25] In the separator, the newly produced nucleus is separated from other nuclides (that of the original beam and any other reaction products)^[e] and transferred to a surface-barrier detector, which stops the nucleus. The exact location of the upcoming impact on the detector is marked; also marked are its energy and the time of the arrival.^[25] The transfer takes about 10⁻⁶ seconds; in order to be detected, the nucleus must survive this long.^[28] The nucleus is recorded again once its decay is registered, and the location, the energy, and the time of the decay are measured.^[25]

Stability of a nucleus is provided by the strong interaction. However, its range is very short; as nuclei become larger, its influence on the outermost nucleons (protons and neutrons) weakens. At the same time, the nucleus is torn apart by electrostatic repulsion between protons, and its range is not limited.^[29] Total binding energy provided by the strong interaction increases linearly with the number of nucleons, whereas electrostatic repulsion increases with the square of the atomic number, i.e. the latter grows faster and becomes increasingly important for heavy and superheavy nuclei.^[30][31] Superheavy nuclei are thus theoretically predicted^[32] and have so far been observed^[33] to predominantly decay via decay modes that are caused by such repulsion: alpha decay and spontaneous fission.^[f] Almost all alpha emitters have over 210 nucleons,^[35] and the lightest nuclide primarily undergoing spontaneous fission has 238.^[36] In both decay modes, nuclei are inhibited from decaying by corresponding energy barriers for each mode, but they can be tunnelled through.^[30][31]

 

Scheme of an apparatus for creation of superheavy elements, based on the Dubna Gas-Filled Recoil Separator set up in the Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions in JINR. The trajectory within the detector and the beam focusing apparatus changes because of a dipole magnet in the former and quadrupole magnets in the latter.^[37]

Alpha particles are commonly produced in radioactive decays because mass of an alpha particle per nucleon is small enough to leave some energy for the alpha particle to be used as kinetic energy to leave the nucleus.^[38] Spontaneous fission is caused by electrostatic repulsion tearing the nucleus apart and produces various nuclei in different instances of identical nuclei fissioning.^[31] As the atomic number increases, spontaneous fission rapidly becomes more important: spontaneous fission partial half-lives decrease by 23 orders of magnitude from uranium (element 92) to nobelium (element 102),^[39] and by 30 orders of magnitude from thorium (element 90) to fermium (element 100).^[40] The earlier liquid drop model thus suggested that spontaneous fission would occur nearly instantly due to disappearance of the fission barrier for nuclei with about 280 nucleons.^[31][41] The later nuclear shell model suggested that nuclei with about 300 nucleons would form an island of stability in which nuclei will be more resistant to spontaneous fission and will primarily undergo alpha decay with longer half-lives.^[31][41] Subsequent discoveries suggested that the predicted island might be further than originally anticipated; they also showed that nuclei intermediate between the long-lived actinides and the predicted island are deformed, and gain additional stability from shell effects.^[42] Experiments on lighter superheavy nuclei,^[43] as well as those closer to the expected island,^[39] have shown greater than previously anticipated stability against spontaneous fission, showing the importance of shell effects on nuclei.^[g]

Alpha decays are registered by the emitted alpha particles, and the decay products are easy to determine before the actual decay; if such a decay or a series of consecutive decays produces a known nucleus, the original product of a reaction can be easily determined.^[h] (That all decays within a decay chain were indeed related to each other is established by the location of these decays, which must be in the same place.)^[25] The known nucleus can be recognized by the specific characteristics of decay it undergoes such as decay energy (or more specifically, the kinetic energy of the emitted particle).^[i] Spontaneous fission, however, produces various nuclei as products, so the original nuclide cannot be determined from its daughters.^[j]

The information available to physicists aiming to synthesize a superheavy element is thus the information collected at the detectors: location, energy, and time of arrival of a particle to the detector, and those of its decay. The physicists analyze this data and seek to conclude that it was indeed caused by a new element and could not have been caused by a different nuclide than the one claimed. Often, provided data is insufficient for a conclusion that a new element was definitely created and there is no other explanation for the observed effects; errors in interpreting data have been made.^[k]

History

See also: Discoveries of the chemical elements

 

A view of the famous Red Square in Moscow. The region around the city was honored by the discoverers as "the ancient Russian land that is the home of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research" and became the namesake of moscovium.

Discovery

The first successful synthesis of moscovium was by a joint team of Russian and American scientists in August 2003 at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Russia. Headed by Russian nuclear physicist Yuri Oganessian, the team included American scientists of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The researchers on February 2, 2004, stated in Physical Review C that they bombarded americium-243 with calcium-48 ions to produce four atoms of moscovium. These atoms decayed by emission of alpha-particles to nihonium in about 100 milliseconds.^[54]

²⁴³
₉₅Am
+ ⁴⁸
₂₀Ca
→ ²⁸⁸
₁₁₅Mc
+ 3 ¹
₀n
→ ²⁸⁴
₁₁₃Nh
+
α

²⁴³
₉₅Am
+ ⁴⁸
₂₀Ca
→ ²⁸⁷
₁₁₅Mc
+ 4 ¹
₀n
→ ²⁸³
₁₁₃Nh
+
α

The Dubna–Livermore collaboration strengthened their claim to the discoveries of moscovium and nihonium by conducting chemical experiments on the final decay product ²⁶⁸Db. None of the nuclides in this decay chain were previously known, so existing experimental data was not available to support their claim. In June 2004 and December 2005, the presence of a dubnium isotope was confirmed by extracting the final decay products, measuring spontaneous fission (SF) activities and using chemical identification techniques to confirm that they behave like a group 5 element (as dubnium is known to be in group 5 of the periodic table).^[1][55] Both the half-life and the decay mode were confirmed for the proposed ²⁶⁸Db, lending support to the assignment of the parent nucleus to moscovium.^[55][56] However, in 2011, the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP) did not recognize the two elements as having been discovered, because current theory could not distinguish the chemical properties of group 4 and group 5 elements with sufficient confidence.^[57] Furthermore, the decay properties of all the nuclei in the decay chain of moscovium had not been previously characterized before the Dubna experiments, a situation which the JWP generally considers "troublesome, but not necessarily exclusive".^[57]

Road to confirmation

Two heavier isotopes of moscovium, ²⁸⁹Mc and ²⁹⁰Mc, were discovered in 2009–2010 as daughters of the tennessine isotopes ²⁹³Ts and ²⁹⁴Ts; the isotope ²⁸⁹Mc was later also synthesized directly and confirmed to have the same properties as found in the tennessine experiments.^[6]

In 2011, the Joint Working Party of international scientific bodies International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) evaluated the 2004 and 2007 Dubna experiments, and concluded that they did not meet the criteria for discovery. Another evaluation of more recent experiments took place within the next few years, and a claim to the discovery of moscovium was again put forward by Dubna.^[57] In August 2013, a team of researchers at Lund University and at the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI) in Darmstadt, Germany announced they had repeated the 2004 experiment, confirming Dubna's findings.^[58][59] Simultaneously, the 2004 experiment had been repeated at Dubna, now additionally also creating the isotope ²⁸⁹Mc that could serve as a cross-bombardment for confirming the discovery of the tennessine isotope ²⁹³Ts in 2010.^[60] Further confirmation was published by the team at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 2015.^[61]

In December 2015, the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party recognized the element's discovery and assigned the priority to the Dubna-Livermore collaboration of 2009–2010, giving them the right to suggest a permanent name for it.^[62] While they did not recognise the experiments synthesising ²⁸⁷Mc and ²⁸⁸Mc as persuasive due to the lack of a convincing identification of atomic number via cross-reactions, they recognised the ²⁹³Ts experiments as persuasive because its daughter ²⁸⁹Mc had been produced independently and found to exhibit the same properties.^[60]

In May 2016, Lund University (Lund, Scania, Sweden) and GSI cast some doubt on the syntheses of moscovium and tennessine. The decay chains assigned to ²⁸⁹Mc, the isotope instrumental in the confirmation of the syntheses of moscovium and tennessine, were found based on a new statistical method to be too different to belong to the same nuclide with a reasonably high probability. The reported ²⁹³Ts decay chains approved as such by the JWP were found to require splitting into individual data sets assigned to different tennessine isotopes. It was also found that the claimed link between the decay chains reported as from ²⁹³Ts and ²⁸⁹Mc probably did not exist. (On the other hand, the chains from the non-approved isotope ²⁹⁴Ts were found to be congruent.) The multiplicity of states found when nuclides that are not even–even undergo alpha decay is not unexpected and contributes to the lack of clarity in the cross-reactions. This study criticized the JWP report for overlooking subtleties associated with this issue, and considered it "problematic" that the only argument for the acceptance of the discoveries of moscovium and tennessine was a link they considered to be doubtful.^[63][64]

On June 8, 2017, two members of the Dubna team published a journal article answering these criticisms, analysing their data on the nuclides ²⁹³Ts and ²⁸⁹Mc with widely accepted statistical methods, noted that the 2016 studies indicating non-congruence produced problematic results when applied to radioactive decay: they excluded from the 90% confidence interval both average and extreme decay times, and the decay chains that would be excluded from the 90% confidence interval they chose were more probable to be observed than those that would be included. The 2017 reanalysis concluded that the observed decay chains of ²⁹³Ts and ²⁸⁹Mc were consistent with the assumption that only one nuclide was present at each step of the chain, although it would be desirable to be able to directly measure the mass number of the originating nucleus of each chain as well as the excitation function of the ²⁴³Am+⁴⁸Ca reaction.^[65]

Naming

Using Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, moscovium is sometimes known as eka-bismuth. In 1979, IUPAC recommended that the placeholder systematic element name ununpentium (with the corresponding symbol of Uup)^[66] be used until the discovery of the element is confirmed and a permanent name is decided. Although widely used in the chemical community on all levels, from chemistry classrooms to advanced textbooks, the recommendations were mostly ignored among scientists in the field, who called it "element 115", with the symbol of E115, (115) or even simply 115.^[1]

On 30 December 2015, discovery of the element was recognized by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).^[67] According to IUPAC recommendations, the discoverer(s) of a new element has the right to suggest a name.^[68] A suggested name was langevinium, after Paul Langevin.^[69] Later, the Dubna team mentioned the name moscovium several times as one among many possibilities, referring to the Moscow Oblast where Dubna is located.^[70][71]

In June 2016, IUPAC endorsed the latter proposal to be formally accepted by the end of the year, which it was on 28 November 2016.^[10] The naming ceremony for moscovium, tennessine, and oganesson was held on 2 March 2017 at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow.^[72]

Predicted properties

Other than nuclear properties, no properties of moscovium or its compounds have been measured; this is due to its extremely limited and expensive production^[73] and the fact that it decays very quickly. Properties of moscovium remain unknown and only predictions are available.

Nuclear stability and isotopes

Main article: Isotopes of moscovium

 

The expected location of the island of stability. The dotted line is the line of beta stability.

Moscovium is expected to be within an island of stability centered on copernicium (element 112) and flerovium (element 114).^[74][75] Due to the expected high fission barriers, any nucleus within this island of stability exclusively decays by alpha decay and perhaps some electron capture and beta decay.^[2] Although the known isotopes of moscovium do not actually have enough neutrons to be on the island of stability, they can be seen to approach the island as in general, the heavier isotopes are the longer-lived ones.^[6][7][55]

The hypothetical isotope ²⁹¹Mc is an especially interesting case as it has only one neutron more than the heaviest known moscovium isotope, ²⁹⁰Mc. It could plausibly be synthesized as the daughter of ²⁹⁵Ts, which in turn could be made from the reaction ²⁴⁹Bk(⁴⁸Ca,2n)²⁹⁵Ts.^[74] Calculations show that it may have a significant electron capture or positron emission decay mode in addition to alpha decay and also have a relatively long half-life of several seconds. This would produce ²⁹¹Fl, ²⁹¹Nh, and finally ²⁹¹Cn which is expected to be in the middle of the island of stability and have a half-life of about 1200 years, affording the most likely hope of reaching the middle of the island using current technology. Possible drawbacks are that the cross section of the production reaction of ²⁹⁵Ts is expected to be low and the decay properties of superheavy nuclei this close to the line of beta stability are largely unexplored.^[74] The light isotopes ²⁸⁴Mc, ²⁸⁵Mc, and ²⁸⁶Mc could be made from the ²⁴¹Am+⁴⁸Ca reaction. They would undergo a chain of alpha decays, ending at transactinide isotopes too light to be made by hot fusion and too heavy to be made by cold fusion.^[74] The isotope ²⁸⁶Mc was found in 2021 at Dubna, in the ²⁴³Am(⁴⁸Ca,5n)²⁸⁶Mc reaction: it decays into the already-known ²⁸²Nh and its daughters.^[76]

Other possibilities to synthesize nuclei on the island of stability include quasifission (partial fusion followed by fission) of a massive nucleus.^[77] Such nuclei tend to fission, expelling doubly magic or nearly doubly magic fragments such as calcium-40, tin-132, lead-208, or bismuth-209.^[78] Recently it has been shown that the multi-nucleon transfer reactions in collisions of actinide nuclei (such as uranium and curium) might be used to synthesize the neutron-rich superheavy nuclei located at the island of stability,^[77] although formation of the lighter elements nobelium or seaborgium is more favored.^[74] One last possibility to synthesize isotopes near the island is to use controlled nuclear explosions to create a neutron flux high enough to bypass the gaps of instability at ^258–260Fm and at mass number 275 (atomic numbers 104 to 108), mimicking the r-process in which the actinides were first produced in nature and the gap of instability around radon bypassed.^[74] Some such isotopes (especially ²⁹¹Cn and ²⁹³Cn) may even have been synthesized in nature, but would have decayed away far too quickly (with half-lives of only thousands of years) and be produced in far too small quantities (about 10⁻¹² the abundance of lead) to be detectable as primordial nuclides today outside cosmic rays.^[74]

Physical and atomic

In the periodic table, moscovium is a member of group 15, the pnictogens. It appears below nitrogen, phosphorus, arsenic, antimony, and bismuth. Every previous pnictogen has five electrons in its valence shell, forming a valence electron configuration of ns²np³. In moscovium's case, the trend should be continued and the valence electron configuration is predicted to be 7s²7p³;^[1] therefore, moscovium will behave similarly to its lighter congeners in many respects. However, notable differences are likely to arise; a largely contributing effect is the spin–orbit (SO) interaction—the mutual interaction between the electrons' motion and spin. It is especially strong for the superheavy elements, because their electrons move much faster than in lighter atoms, at velocities comparable to the speed of light.^[79] In relation to moscovium atoms, it lowers the 7s and the 7p electron energy levels (stabilizing the corresponding electrons), but two of the 7p electron energy levels are stabilized more than the other four.^[80] The stabilization of the 7s electrons is called the inert-pair effect, and the effect "tearing" the 7p subshell into the more stabilized and the less stabilized parts is called subshell splitting. Computation chemists see the split as a change of the second (azimuthal) quantum number l from 1 to 1⁄2 and 3⁄2 for the more stabilized and less stabilized parts of the 7p subshell, respectively.^[79][l] For many theoretical purposes, the valence electron configuration may be represented to reflect the 7p subshell split as 7s²
7p²
_1/27p¹
_3/2.^[1] These effects cause moscovium's chemistry to be somewhat different from that of its lighter congeners.

The valence electrons of moscovium fall into three subshells: 7s (two electrons), 7p_1/2 (two electrons), and 7p_3/2 (one electron). The first two of these are relativistically stabilized and hence behave as inert pairs, while the last is relativistically destabilized and can easily participate in chemistry.^[1] (The 6d electrons are not destabilized enough to participate chemically.)^[2] Thus, the +1 oxidation state should be favored, like Tl⁺, and consistent with this the first ionization potential of moscovium should be around 5.58 eV, continuing the trend towards lower ionization potentials down the pnictogens.^[1] Moscovium and nihonium both have one electron outside a quasi-closed shell configuration that can be delocalized in the metallic state: thus they should have similar melting and boiling points (both melting around 400 °C and boiling around 1100 °C) due to the strength of their metallic bonds being similar.^[2] Additionally, the predicted ionization potential, ionic radius (1.5 Å for Mc⁺; 1.0 Å for Mc³⁺), and polarizability of Mc⁺ are expected to be more similar to Tl⁺ than its true congener Bi³⁺.^[2] Moscovium should be a dense metal due to its high atomic weight, with a density around 13.5 g/cm³.^[2] The electron of the hydrogen-like moscovium atom (oxidized so that it only has one electron, Mc¹¹⁴⁺) is expected to move so fast that it has a mass 1.82 times that of a stationary electron, due to relativistic effects. For comparison, the figures for hydrogen-like bismuth and antimony are expected to be 1.25 and 1.077 respectively.^[79]

Chemical

Moscovium is predicted to be the third member of the 7p series of chemical elements and the heaviest member of group 15 in the periodic table, below bismuth. Unlike the two previous 7p elements, moscovium is expected to be a good homologue of its lighter congener, in this case bismuth.^[81] In this group, each member is known to portray the group oxidation state of +5 but with differing stability. For nitrogen, the +5 state is mostly a formal explanation of molecules like N₂O₅: it is very difficult to have five covalent bonds to nitrogen due to the inability of the small nitrogen atom to accommodate five ligands. The +5 state is well represented for the essentially non-relativistic typical pnictogens phosphorus, arsenic, and antimony. However, for bismuth it becomes rare due to the relativistic stabilization of the 6s orbitals known as the inert-pair effect, so that the 6s electrons are reluctant to bond chemically. It is expected that moscovium will have an inert-pair effect for both the 7s and the 7p_1/2 electrons, as the binding energy of the lone 7p_3/2 electron is noticeably lower than that of the 7p_1/2 electrons. Nitrogen(I) and bismuth(I) are known but rare and moscovium(I) is likely to show some unique properties,^[82] probably behaving more like thallium(I) than bismuth(I).^[2] Because of spin-orbit coupling, flerovium may display closed-shell or noble gas-like properties; if this is the case, moscovium will likely be typically monovalent as a result, since the cation Mc⁺ will have the same electron configuration as flerovium, perhaps giving moscovium some alkali metal character.^[2] Calculations predict that moscovium(I) fluoride and chloride would be ionic compounds, with an ionic radius of about 109–114 pm for Mc⁺, although the 7p_1/2 lone pair on the Mc⁺ ion should be highly polarisable.^[83] The Mc³⁺ cation should behave like its true lighter homolog Bi³⁺.^[2] The 7s electrons are too stabilized to be able to contribute chemically and hence the +5 state should be impossible and moscovium may be considered to have only three valence electrons.^[2] Moscovium would be quite a reactive metal, with a standard reduction potential of −1.5 V for the Mc⁺/Mc couple.^[2]

The chemistry of moscovium in aqueous solution should essentially be that of the Mc⁺ and Mc³⁺ ions. The former should be easily hydrolyzed and not be easily complexed with halides, cyanide, and ammonia.^[2] Moscovium(I) hydroxide (McOH), carbonate (Mc₂CO₃), oxalate (Mc₂C₂O₄), and fluoride (McF) should be soluble in water; the sulfide (Mc₂S) should be insoluble; and the chloride (McCl), bromide (McBr), iodide (McI), and thiocyanate (McSCN) should be only slightly soluble, so that adding excess hydrochloric acid would not noticeably affect the solubility of moscovium(I) chloride.^[2] Mc³⁺ should be about as stable as Tl³⁺ and hence should also be an important part of moscovium chemistry, although its closest homolog among the elements should be its lighter congener Bi³⁺.^[2] Moscovium(III) fluoride (McF₃) and thiozonide (McS₃) should be insoluble in water, similar to the corresponding bismuth compounds, while moscovium(III) chloride (McCl₃), bromide (McBr₃), and iodide (McI₃) should be readily soluble and easily hydrolyzed to form oxyhalides such as McOCl and McOBr, again analogous to bismuth.^[2] Both moscovium(I) and moscovium(III) should be common oxidation states and their relative stability should depend greatly on what they are complexed with and the likelihood of hydrolysis.^[2]

Like its lighter homologues ammonia, phosphine, arsine, stibine, and bismuthine, moscovine (McH₃) is expected to have a trigonal pyramidal molecular geometry, with an Mc–H bond length of 195.4 pm and a H–Mc–H bond angle of 91.8° (bismuthine has bond length 181.7 pm and bond angle 91.9°; stibine has bond length 172.3 pm and bond angle 92.0°).^[84] In the predicted aromatic pentagonal planar Mc⁻
₅ cluster, analogous to pentazolate (N⁻
₅), the Mc–Mc bond length is expected to be expanded from the extrapolated value of 156–158 pm to 329 pm due to spin–orbit coupling effects.^[85]

Experimental chemistry

Unambiguous determination of the chemical characteristics of moscovium has yet to have been established.^[86][87] In 2011, experiments were conducted to create nihonium, flerovium, and moscovium isotopes in the reactions between calcium-48 projectiles and targets of americium-243 and plutonium-244. However, the targets included lead and bismuth impurities and hence some isotopes of bismuth and polonium were generated in nucleon transfer reactions. This, while an unforeseen complication, could give information that would help in the future chemical investigation of the heavier homologs of bismuth and polonium, which are respectively moscovium and livermorium.^[87] The produced nuclides bismuth-213 and polonium-212m were transported as the hydrides ²¹³BiH₃ and ^212mPoH₂ at 850 °C through a quartz wool filter unit held with tantalum, showing that these hydrides were surprisingly thermally stable, although their heavier congeners McH₃ and LvH₂ would be expected to be less thermally stable from simple extrapolation of periodic trends in the p-block.^[87] Further calculations on the stability and electronic structure of BiH₃, McH₃, PoH₂, and LvH₂ are needed before chemical investigations take place. However, moscovium and livermorium are expected to be volatile enough as pure elements for them to be chemically investigated in the near future. The moscovium isotopes ²⁸⁸Mc, ²⁸⁹Mc, and ²⁹⁰Mc may be chemically investigated with current methods, although their short half-lives would make this challenging.^[87] Moscovium is the heaviest element that has known isotopes that are long-lived enough for chemical experimentation.^[88]

See also

•  Chemistry portal

• Materials science in science fiction § Moscovium

Notes

1. In nuclear physics, an element is called heavy if its atomic number is high; lead (element 82) is one example of such a heavy element. The term "superheavy elements" typically refers to elements with atomic number greater than 103 (although there are other definitions, such as atomic number greater than 100^[11] or 112;^[12] sometimes, the term is presented an equivalent to the term "transactinide", which puts an upper limit before the beginning of the hypothetical superactinide series).^[13] Terms "heavy isotopes" (of a given element) and "heavy nuclei" mean what could be understood in the common language—isotopes of high mass (for the given element) and nuclei of high mass, respectively.
2. In 2009, a team at the JINR led by Oganessian published results of their attempt to create hassium in a symmetric ¹³⁶Xe + ¹³⁶Xe reaction. They failed to observe a single atom in such a reaction, putting the upper limit on the cross section, the measure of probability of a nuclear reaction, as 2.5 pb.^[14] In comparison, the reaction that resulted in hassium discovery, ²⁰⁸Pb + ⁵⁸Fe, had a cross section of ~20 pb (more specifically, 19⁺¹⁹
   _-11 pb), as estimated by the discoverers.^[15]
3. The amount of energy applied to the beam particle to accelerate it can also influence the value of cross section. For example, in the ²⁸
   ₁₄Si
   + ¹
   ₀n
   → ²⁸
   ₁₃Al
   + ¹
   ₁p
   reaction, cross section changes smoothly from 370 mb at 12.3 MeV to 160 mb at 18.3 MeV, with a broad peak at 13.5 MeV with the maximum value of 380 mb.^[19]
4. This figure also marks the generally accepted upper limit for lifetime of a compound nucleus.^[24]
5. This separation is based on that the resulting nuclei move past the target more slowly then the unreacted beam nuclei. The separator contains electric and magnetic fields whose effects on a moving particle cancel out for a specific velocity of a particle.^[26] Such separation can also be aided by a time-of-flight measurement and a recoil energy measurement; a combination of the two may allow to estimate the mass of a nucleus.^[27]
6. Not all decay modes are caused by electrostatic repulsion. For example, beta decay is caused by the weak interaction.^[34]
7. It was already known by the 1960s that ground states of nuclei differed in energy and shape as well as that certain magic numbers of nucleons corresponded to greater stability of a nucleus. However, it was assumed that there was no nuclear structure in superheavy nuclei as they were too deformed to form one.^[39]
8. Since mass of a nucleus is not measured directly but is rather calculated from that of another nucleus, such measurement is called indirect. Direct measurements are also possible, but for the most part they have remained unavailable for superheavy nuclei.^[44] The first direct measurement of mass of a superheavy nucleus was reported in 2018 at LBNL.^[45] Mass was determined from the location of a nucleus after the transfer (the location helps determine its trajectory, which is linked to the mass-to-charge ratio of the nucleus, since the transfer was done in presence of a magnet).^[46]
9. If the decay occurred in a vacuum, then since total momentum of an isolated system before and after the decay must be preserved, the daughter nucleus would also receive a small velocity. The ratio of the two velocities, and accordingly the ratio of the kinetic energies, would thus be inverse to the ratio of the two masses. The decay energy equals the sum of the known kinetic energy of the alpha particle and that of the daughter nucleus (an exact fraction of the former).^[35] The calculations hold for an experiment as well, but the difference is that the nucleus does not move after the decay because it is tied to the detector.
10. Spontaneous fission was discovered by Soviet physicist Georgy Flerov,^[47] a leading scientist at JINR, and thus it was a "hobbyhorse" for the facility.^[48] In contrast, the LBL scientists believed fission information was not sufficient for a claim of synthesis of an element. They believed spontaneous fission had not been studied enough to use it for identification of a new element, since there was a difficulty of establishing that a compound nucleus had only ejected neutrons and not charged particles like protons or alpha particles.^[24] They thus preferred to link new isotopes to the already known ones by successive alpha decays.^[47]
11. For instance, element 102 was mistakenly identified in 1957 at the Nobel Institute of Physics in Stockholm, Stockholm County, Sweden.^[49] There were no earlier definitive claims of creation of this element, and the element was assigned a name by its Swedish, American, and British discoverers, nobelium. It was later shown that the identification was incorrect.^[50] The following year, RL was unable to reproduce the Swedish results and announced instead their synthesis of the element; that claim was also disproved later.^[50] JINR insisted that they were the first to create the element and suggested a name of their own for the new element, joliotium;^[51] the Soviet name was also not accepted (JINR later referred to the naming of the element 102 as "hasty").^[52] This name was proposed to IUPAC in a written response to their ruling on priority of discovery claims of elements, signed 29 September 1992.^[52] The name "nobelium" remained unchanged on account of its widespread usage.^[53]
12. The quantum number corresponds to the letter in the electron orbital name: 0 to s, 1 to p, 2 to d, etc. See azimuthal quantum number for more information.

References

1. Hoffman, Darleane C.; Lee, Diana M.; Pershina, Valeria (2006). "Transactinides and the future elements". In Morss; Edelstein, Norman M.; Fuger, Jean (eds.). The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (3rd ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4020-3555-5.
2. Fricke, Burkhard (1975). "Superheavy elements: a prediction of their chemical and physical properties". Recent Impact of Physics on Inorganic Chemistry. Structure and Bonding. 21: 89–144. doi:10.1007/BFb0116498. ISBN 978-3-540-07109-9. Retrieved 2013-10-04.
3. Bonchev, Danail; Kamenska, Verginia (1981). "Predicting the Properties of the 113–120 Transactinide Elements". Journal of Physical Chemistry. American Chemical Society. 85 (9): 1177–1186. doi:10.1021/j150609a021.
4. Pershina, Valeria. "Theoretical Chemistry of the Heaviest Elements". In Schädel, Matthias; Shaughnessy, Dawn (eds.). The Chemistry of Superheavy Elements (2nd ed.). Springer Science & Business Media. p. 154. ISBN 9783642374661.
5. Kovrizhnykh, N. (27 January 2022). "Update on the experiments at the SHE Factory". Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions. Retrieved 2022-02-28.
6. Oganessian, Yuri Ts.; Abdullin, F. Sh.; Bailey, P. D.; et al. (9 April 2010). "Synthesis of a New Element with Atomic Number Z=117". Physical Review Letters. American Physical Society. 104 (142502): 142502. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104n2502O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.142502. PMID 20481935.
7. Oganessian, Y.T. (2015). "Super-heavy element research". Reports on Progress in Physics. 78 (3): 036301. Bibcode:2015RPPh...78c6301O. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/78/3/036301. PMID 25746203. S2CID 37779526.
8. Staff (30 November 2016). "IUPAC Announces the Names of the Elements 113, 115, 117, and 118". IUPAC. Retrieved 2016-12-01.
9. St. Fleur, Nicholas (1 December 2016). "Four New Names Officially Added to the Periodic Table of Elements". The New York Times. Retrieved 2016-12-01.
10. "IUPAC Is Naming The Four New Elements Nihonium, Moscovium, Tennessine, And Oganesson". IUPAC. 8 June 2016. Retrieved 2016-06-08.
11. Krämer, K. (2016). "Explainer: superheavy elements". Chemistry World. Retrieved 2020-03-15.
12. . Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Archived from the original on 2015-09-11. Retrieved 2020-03-15.
13. Eliav, E.; Kaldor, U.; Borschevsky, A. (2018). "Electronic Structure of the Transactinide Atoms". In Scott, R. A. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Inorganic and Bioinorganic Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 1–16. doi:10.1002/9781119951438.eibc2632. ISBN 978-1-119-95143-8. S2CID 127060181.
14. Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Dmitriev, S. N.; Yeremin, A. V.; et al. (2009). "Attempt to produce the isotopes of element 108 in the fusion reaction ¹³⁶Xe + ¹³⁶Xe". Physical Review C. 79 (2): 024608. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.79.024608. ISSN 0556-2813.
15. Münzenberg, G.; Armbruster, P.; Folger, H.; et al. (1984). (PDF). Zeitschrift für Physik A. 317 (2): 235–236. Bibcode:1984ZPhyA.317..235M. doi:10.1007/BF01421260. S2CID 123288075. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-06-07. Retrieved 2012-10-20.
16. Subramanian, S. (28 August 2019). "Making New Elements Doesn't Pay. Just Ask This Berkeley Scientist". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 2020-01-18.
17. Ivanov, D. (2019). "Сверхтяжелые шаги в неизвестное" [Superheavy steps into the unknown]. nplus1.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2020-02-02.
18. Hinde, D. (2017). "Something new and superheavy at the periodic table". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-01-30.
19. Kern, B. D.; Thompson, W. E.; Ferguson, J. M. (1959). "Cross sections for some (n, p) and (n, α) reactions". Nuclear Physics. 10: 226–234. Bibcode:1959NucPh..10..226K. doi:10.1016/0029-5582(59)90211-1.
20. Wakhle, A.; Simenel, C.; Hinde, D. J.; et al. (2015). Simenel, C.; Gomes, P. R. S.; Hinde, D. J.; et al. (eds.). "Comparing Experimental and Theoretical Quasifission Mass Angle Distributions". European Physical Journal Web of Conferences. 86: 00061. Bibcode:2015EPJWC..8600061W. doi:10.1051/epjconf/20158600061. hdl:1885/148847. ISSN 2100-014X.
21. "Nuclear Reactions" (PDF). pp. 7–8. Retrieved 2020-01-27. Published as Loveland, W. D.; Morrissey, D. J.; Seaborg, G. T. (2005). "Nuclear Reactions". Modern Nuclear Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 249–297. doi:10.1002/0471768626.ch10. ISBN 978-0-471-76862-3.
22. Krása, A. (2010). "Neutron Sources for ADS". Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering. Czech Technical University in Prague: 4–8. S2CID 28796927.
23. Wapstra, A. H. (1991). "Criteria that must be satisfied for the discovery of a new chemical element to be recognized" (PDF). Pure and Applied Chemistry. 63 (6): 883. doi:10.1351/pac199163060879. ISSN 1365-3075. S2CID 95737691.
24. Hyde, E. K.; Hoffman, D. C.; Keller, O. L. (1987). "A History and Analysis of the Discovery of Elements 104 and 105". Radiochimica Acta. 42 (2): 67–68. doi:10.1524/ract.1987.42.2.57. ISSN 2193-3405. S2CID 99193729.
25. Chemistry World (2016). "How to Make Superheavy Elements and Finish the Periodic Table [Video]". Scientific American. Retrieved 2020-01-27.
26. Hoffman, Ghiorso & Seaborg 2000, p. 334.
27. Hoffman, Ghiorso & Seaborg 2000, p. 335.
28. Zagrebaev, Karpov & Greiner 2013, p. 3.
29. Beiser 2003, p. 432.
30. Pauli, N. (2019). "Alpha decay" (PDF). Introductory Nuclear, Atomic and Molecular Physics (Nuclear Physics Part). Université libre de Bruxelles. Retrieved 2020-02-16.
31. Pauli, N. (2019). "Nuclear fission" (PDF). Introductory Nuclear, Atomic and Molecular Physics (Nuclear Physics Part). Université libre de Bruxelles. Retrieved 2020-02-16.
32. Staszczak, A.; Baran, A.; Nazarewicz, W. (2013). "Spontaneous fission modes and lifetimes of superheavy elements in the nuclear density functional theory". Physical Review C. 87 (2): 024320–1. arXiv:1208.1215. Bibcode:2013PhRvC..87b4320S. doi:10.1103/physrevc.87.024320. ISSN 0556-2813.
33. Audi et al. 2017, pp. 030001-129–030001-138.
34. Beiser 2003, p. 439.
35. Beiser 2003, p. 433.
36. Audi et al. 2017, p. 030001-125.
37. Aksenov, N. V.; Steinegger, P.; Abdullin, F. Sh.; et al. (2017). "On the volatility of nihonium (Nh, Z = 113)". The European Physical Journal A. 53 (7): 158. Bibcode:2017EPJA...53..158A. doi:10.1140/epja/i2017-12348-8. ISSN 1434-6001. S2CID 125849923.
38. Beiser 2003, p. 432–433.
39. Oganessian, Yu. (2012). "Nuclei in the "Island of Stability" of Superheavy Elements". Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 337 (1): 012005-1–012005-6. Bibcode:2012JPhCS.337a2005O. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/337/1/012005. ISSN 1742-6596.
40. Moller, P.; Nix, J. R. (1994). Fission properties of the heaviest elements (PDF). Dai 2 Kai Hadoron Tataikei no Simulation Symposium, Tokai-mura, Ibaraki, Japan. University of North Texas. Retrieved 2020-02-16.
41. Oganessian, Yu. Ts. (2004). "Superheavy elements". Physics World. 17 (7): 25–29. doi:10.1088/2058-7058/17/7/31. Retrieved 2020-02-16.
42. Schädel, M. (2015). "Chemistry of the superheavy elements". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 373 (2037): 20140191. Bibcode:2015RSPTA.37340191S. doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0191. ISSN 1364-503X. PMID 25666065.
43. Hulet, E. K. (1989). Biomodal spontaneous fission. 50th Anniversary of Nuclear Fission, Leningrad, USSR. Bibcode:1989nufi.rept...16H.
44. Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Rykaczewski, K. P. (2015). "A beachhead on the island of stability". Physics Today. 68 (8): 32–38. Bibcode:2015PhT....68h..32O. doi:10.1063/PT.3.2880. ISSN 0031-9228. OSTI 1337838. S2CID 119531411.
45. Grant, A. (2018). "Weighing the heaviest elements". Physics Today. doi:10.1063/PT.6.1.20181113a. S2CID 239775403.
46. Howes, L. (2019). "Exploring the superheavy elements at the end of the periodic table". Chemical & Engineering News. Retrieved 2020-01-27.
47. Robinson, A. E. (2019). "The Transfermium Wars: Scientific Brawling and Name-Calling during the Cold War". Distillations. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
48. "Популярная библиотека химических элементов. Сиборгий (экавольфрам)" [Popular library of chemical elements. Seaborgium (eka-tungsten)]. n-t.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2020-01-07. Reprinted from "Экавольфрам" [Eka-tungsten]. Популярная библиотека химических элементов. Серебро – Нильсборий и далее [Popular library of chemical elements. Silver through nielsbohrium and beyond] (in Russian). Nauka. 1977.
49. "Nobelium - Element information, properties and uses | Periodic Table". Royal Society of Chemistry. Retrieved 2020-03-01.
50. Kragh 2018, pp. 38–39.
51. Kragh 2018, p. 40.
52. Ghiorso, A.; Seaborg, G. T.; Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; et al. (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. S2CID 95069384. (PDF) from the original on 2013-11-25. Retrieved 2016-09-07.
53. Commission on Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (1997). "Names and symbols of transfermium elements (IUPAC Recommendations 1997)" (PDF). Pure and Applied Chemistry. 69 (12): 2471–2474. doi:10.1351/pac199769122471.
54. Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Utyonkov, V. K.; Lobanov, Yu. V.; et al. (February 2004). "Experiments on the synthesis of element 115 in the reaction ²⁴³Am(⁴⁸Ca,xn)^291−x115". Physical Review C. 69 (2): 021601-1–5. Bibcode:2004PhRvC..69b1601O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.69.021601. "preprint" (PDF). JINR Preprints. 2003.
55. Dmitriev, S. N.; Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Utyonkov, V. K.; et al. (September 2005). "Results of the experiment on chemical identification of Db as a decay product of element 115". In Penionzhkevich, Yu. E.; Cherepanov, E. A. (eds.). EXOTIC NUCLEI (EXON2004). International Symposium On Exotic Nuclei, Peterhof, Russian Federation, 5–12 July 2004. World Scientific Publishing. pp. 285–294. Bibcode:2005exnu.conf..285D. doi:10.1142/9789812701749_0040. ISBN 9789812701749. "preprint" (PDF). JINR Preprints. 2004.
56. Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Utyonkov, V.; Dmitriev, S.; et al. (2005). "Synthesis of elements 115 and 113 in the reaction ²⁴³Am + ⁴⁸Ca". Physical Review C. 72 (3): 034611. Bibcode:2005PhRvC..72c4611O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.72.034611.
57. Barber, Robert C.; Karol, Paul J.; Nakahara, Hiromichi; Vardaci, Emanuele; Vogt, Erich W. (2011). "Discovery of the elements with atomic numbers greater than or equal to 113 (IUPAC Technical Report)". Pure Appl. Chem. 83 (7): 1485. doi:10.1351/PAC-REP-10-05-01.
58. "Existence of new element confirmed". Lund University. 27 August 2013. Retrieved 2016-04-10.
59. "Spectroscopy of element 115 decay chains (Accepted for publication on Physical Review Letters on 9 August 2013)". Archived from the original on 2013-08-27. Retrieved 2013-09-02.
60. Karol, Paul J.; Barber, Robert C.; Sherrill, Bradley M.; Vardaci, Emanuele; Yamazaki, Toshimitsu (22 December 2015). "Discovery of the elements with atomic numbers Z = 113, 115 and 117 (IUPAC Technical Report)" (PDF). Pure Appl. Chem. 88 (1–2): 139–153. doi:10.1515/pac-2015-0502. S2CID 101634372. Retrieved 2016-04-02.
61. Gates, J. M.; Gregorich, K. E.; Gothe, O. R.; et al. (2015). "Decay spectroscopy of element 115 daughters: ²⁸⁰Rg→²⁷⁶Mt and ²⁷⁶Mt→Bh" (PDF). Physical Review C. 92 (2): 021301. Bibcode:2015PhRvC..92b1301G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.92.021301.
62. Discovery and Assignment of Elements with Atomic Numbers 113, 115, 117 and 118 2015-12-31 at the Wayback Machine. IUPAC (2015-12-30)
63. Forsberg, U.; Rudolph, D.; Fahlander, C.; et al. (9 July 2016). "A new assessment of the alleged link between element 115 and element 117 decay chains" (PDF). Physics Letters B. 760 (2016): 293–6. Bibcode:2016PhLB..760..293F. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.008. Retrieved 2016-04-02.
64. Forsberg, Ulrika; Fahlander, Claes; Rudolph, Dirk (2016). Congruence of decay chains of elements 113, 115, and 117 (PDF). Nobel Symposium NS160 – Chemistry and Physics of Heavy and Superheavy Elements. doi:10.1051/epjconf/201613102003.
65. Zlokazov, V. B.; Utyonkov, V. K. (8 June 2017). "Analysis of decay chains of superheavy nuclei produced in the ²⁴⁹Bk+⁴⁸Ca and ²⁴³Am+⁴⁸Ca reactions". Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics. 44 (75107): 075107. Bibcode:2017JPhG...44g5107Z. doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aa7293.
66. 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.
67. . 30 December 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-12-31. Retrieved 2015-12-31.
68. Koppenol, W. H. (2002). "Naming of new elements (IUPAC Recommendations 2002)" (PDF). Pure and Applied Chemistry. 74 (5): 787. doi:10.1351/pac200274050787. S2CID 95859397.
69. "115-ый элемент Унунпентиум может появиться в таблице Менделеева". oane.ws (in Russian). 28 August 2013. Retrieved 2015-09-23. В свою очередь, российские физики предлагают свой вариант – ланжевений (Ln) в честь известного французского физика-теоретика прошлого столетия Ланжевена.
70. Fedorova, Vera (30 March 2011). "Весенняя сессия Комитета полномочных представителей ОИЯИ". JINR (in Russian). Joint Institute for Nuclear Research. Retrieved 2015-09-22.
71. Zavyalova, Victoria (25 August 2015). "Element 115, in Moscow's name". Russia & India Report. Archived from the original on 2016-01-06. Retrieved 2015-09-22.
72. Fedorova, Vera (3 March 2017). "At the inauguration ceremony of the new elements of the Periodic table of D.I. Mendeleev". jinr.ru. Joint Institute for Nuclear Research. Retrieved 2018-02-04.
73. Subramanian, S. (28 August 2019). "Making New Elements Doesn't Pay. Just Ask This Berkeley Scientist". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 2020-01-18.
74. Zagrebaev, Valeriy; Karpov, Alexander; Greiner, Walter (2013). "Future of superheavy element research: Which nuclei could be synthesized within the next few years?" (PDF). Journal of Physics: Conference Series. Vol. 420. IOP Science. pp. 1–15. Retrieved 2013-08-20.
75. Considine, Glenn D.; Kulik, Peter H. (2002). Van Nostrand's scientific encyclopedia (9th ed.). Wiley-Interscience. ISBN 978-0-471-33230-5. OCLC 223349096.
76. Kovrizhnykh, N. (27 January 2022). "Update on the experiments at the SHE Factory". Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions. Retrieved 2022-02-28.
77. Zagrebaev, V.; Greiner, W. (2008). "Synthesis of superheavy nuclei: A search for new production reactions". Physical Review C. 78 (3): 034610. arXiv:0807.2537. Bibcode:2008PhRvC..78c4610Z. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.78.034610.
78. "JINR Annual Reports 2000–2006". JINR. Retrieved 2013-08-27.
79. Thayer, John S. (2010). "Relativistic Effects and the Chemistry of the Heavier Main Group Elements". Relativistic Methods for Chemists. Challenges and Advances in Computational Chemistry and Physics. Vol. 10. Springer. pp. 63–67, 83. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9975-5_2. ISBN 978-1-4020-9974-8.
80. Faegri, K.; Saue, T. (2001). "Diatomic molecules between very heavy elements of group 13 and group 17: A study of relativistic effects on bonding". Journal of Chemical Physics. 115 (6): 2456. Bibcode:2001JChPh.115.2456F. doi:10.1063/1.1385366.
81. Zaitsevskii, A.; van Wüllen, C.; Rusakov, A.; Titov, A. (September 2007). "Relativistic DFT and ab initio calculations on the seventh-row superheavy elements: E113 - E114" (PDF). jinr.ru. Retrieved 2018-02-17.
82. Keller, O. L. Jr.; C. W. Nestor Jr. (1974). "Predicted properties of the superheavy elements. III. Element 115, Eka-bismuth" (PDF). Journal of Physical Chemistry. 78 (19): 1945. doi:10.1021/j100612a015.
83. Santiago, Régis T.; Haiduke, Roberto L. A. (9 March 2020). "Determination of molecular properties for moscovium halides (McF and McCl)". Theoretical Chemistry Accounts. 139 (60): 1–4. doi:10.1007/s00214-020-2573-4. S2CID 212629735.
84. Santiago, Régis T.; Haiduke, Roberto L. A. (2018). "Relativistic effects on inversion barriers of pyramidal group 15 hydrides". International Journal of Quantum Chemistry. 118 (14): e25585. doi:10.1002/qua.25585.
85. Alvarez-Thon, Luis; Inostroza-Pino, Natalia (2018). "Spin–Orbit Effects on Magnetically Induced Current Densities in the M⁻
    ₅ (M = N, P, As, Sb, Bi, Mc) Clusters". Journal of Computational Chemistry. 2018 (14): 862–868. doi:10.1002/jcc.25170. PMID 29396895. S2CID 4721588.
86. Düllmann, Christoph E. (2012). "Superheavy elements at GSI: a broad research program with element 114 in the focus of physics and chemistry". Radiochimica Acta. 100 (2): 67–74. doi:10.1524/ract.2011.1842. S2CID 100778491.
87. Eichler, Robert (2013). "First foot prints of chemistry on the shore of the Island of Superheavy Elements". Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Science. 420 (1): 012003. arXiv:1212.4292. Bibcode:2013JPhCS.420a2003E. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/420/1/012003. S2CID 55653705.
88. Moody, Ken (30 November 2013). "Synthesis of Superheavy Elements". In Schädel, Matthias; Shaughnessy, Dawn (eds.). The Chemistry of Superheavy Elements (2nd ed.). Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 24–8. ISBN 9783642374661.

Bibliography

• Audi, G.; Kondev, F. G.; Wang, M.; et al. (2017). "The NUBASE2016 evaluation of nuclear properties". Chinese Physics C. 41 (3): 030001. Bibcode:2017ChPhC..41c0001A. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030001.
• Beiser, A. (2003). Concepts of modern physics (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-244848-1. OCLC 48965418.
• Hoffman, D. C.; Ghiorso, A.; Seaborg, G. T. (2000). The Transuranium People: The Inside Story. World Scientific. ISBN 978-1-78-326244-1.
• Kragh, H. (2018). From Transuranic to Superheavy Elements: A Story of Dispute and Creation. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-75813-8.

External links

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Moscovium.

• Uut and Uup Add Their Atomic Mass to Periodic Table
• Superheavy elements
• History and etymology
• Moscovium at The Periodic Table of Videos (University of Nottingham)