Unbihexium, also known as element 126 or eka-plutonium, is the hypothetical chemical element with atomic number 126 and placeholder symbol Ubh. Unbihexium and Ubh are the temporary IUPAC name and symbol, respectively, until the element is discovered, confirmed, and a permanent name is decided upon. In the periodic table, unbihexium is expected to be a g-block superactinide and the eighth element in the 8th period. Unbihexium has attracted attention among nuclear physicists, especially in early predictions targeting properties of superheavy elements, for 126 may be a magic number of protons near the center of an island of stability, leading to longer half-lives, especially for 310Ubh or 354Ubh which may also have magic numbers of neutrons.
Early interest in possible increased stability led to the first attempted synthesis of unbihexium in 1971 and searches for it in nature in subsequent years. Despite several reported observations, more recent studies suggest that these experiments were insufficiently sensitive; hence, no unbihexium has been found naturally or artificially. Predictions of the stability of unbihexium vary greatly among different models; some suggest the island of stability may instead lie at a lower atomic number, closer to copernicium and flerovium.
Unbihexium is predicted to be a chemically active superactinide, exhibiting a variety of oxidation states from +1 to +8, and possibly being a heavier congener of plutonium. An overlap in energy levels of the 5g, 6f, 7d, and 8p orbitals is also expected, which complicates predictions of chemical properties for this element.
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.
The heaviest[a]atomic nuclei are created in nuclear reactions that combine 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. 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. Coming close 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. If fusion does occur, the temporary merger--termed a compound nucleus--is an excited state. To lose its excitation energy and reach a more stable state, a compound nucleus either fissions or ejects one or several neutrons,[c] which carry away the energy. This occurs in approximately 10-16 seconds after the initial collision.[d]
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. 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. The transfer takes about 10-6 seconds; in order to be detected, the nucleus must survive this long. The nucleus is recorded again once its decay is registered, and the location, the energy, and the time of the decay are measured.
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, as it has unlimited range. Nuclei of the heaviest elements are thus theoretically predicted and have so far been observed to primarily decay via decay modes that are caused by such repulsion: alpha decay and spontaneous fission;[f] these modes are predominant for nuclei of superheavy elements. 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 determined arithmetically.[g] Spontaneous fission, however, produces various nuclei as products, so the original nuclide cannot be determined from its daughters.[h]
The information available to physicists aiming to synthesize one of the heaviest elements 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.[i]
The first and only attempt to synthesize unbihexium, which was unsuccessful, was performed in 1971 at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) by René Bimbot and John M. Alexander using the hot fusion reaction:
232 90Th + 84 36Kr -> 316 126Ubh * -> no atoms
High-energy (13-15 MeV) alpha particles were observed and taken as possible evidence for the synthesis of unbihexium. Subsequent unsuccessful experiments with higher sensitivity suggest that the 10 mb sensitivity of this experiment was too low; hence, the formation of unbihexium nuclei in this reaction was deemed highly unlikely.
Possible natural occurrence
A study in 1976 by a group of American researchers from several universities proposed that primordial superheavy elements, mainly livermorium, unbiquadium, unbihexium, and unbiseptium, with half-lives exceeding 500 million years could be a cause of unexplained radiation damage (particularly radiohalos) in minerals. This prompted many researchers to search for them in nature from 1976 to 1983. A group led by Tom Cahill, a professor at the University of California at Davis, claimed in 1976 that they had detected alpha particles and X-rays with the right energies to cause the damage observed, supporting the presence of these elements, especially unbihexium. Others claimed that none had been detected, and questioned the proposed characteristics of primordial superheavy nuclei. In particular, they cited that the magic number N = 228 necessary for enhanced stability would create a neutron-excessive nucleus in unbihexium that might not be beta-stable, although several calculations suggest that 354Ubh may indeed be stable against beta decay. This activity was also proposed to be caused by nuclear transmutations in natural cerium, raising further ambiguity upon this claimed observation of superheavy elements.
Unbihexium has received particular attention in these investigations, for its speculated location in the island of stability may increase its abundance relative to other superheavy elements. Any naturally occurring unbihexium is predicted to be chemically similar to plutonium and may exist with primordial 244Pu in the rare earth mineral bastnäsite. In particular, plutonium and unbihexium are predicted to have similar valence configurations, leading to the existence of unbihexium in the +4 oxidation state. Therefore, should unbihexium occur naturally, it may be possible to extract it using similar techniques for the accumulation of cerium and plutonium. Likewise, unbihexium could also exist in monazite with other lanthanides and actinides that would be chemically similar. Recent doubt on the existence of primordial 244Pu casts uncertainty on these predictions, however, as the nonexistence (or minimal existence) of plutonium in bastnäsite will inhibit possible identification of unbihexium as its heavier congener.
The possible extent of primordial superheavy elements on Earth today is uncertain. Even if they are confirmed to have caused the radiation damage long ago, they might now have decayed to mere traces, or even be completely gone. It is also uncertain if such superheavy nuclei may be produced naturally at all, as spontaneous fission is expected to terminate the r-process responsible for heavy element formation between mass number 270 and 290, well before elements such as unbihexium may be formed.
Using the 1979 IUPAC recommendations, the element should be temporarily calledunbihexium (symbol Ubh) until it is discovered, the discovery is confirmed, and a permanent name chosen. Although widely used in the chemical community on all levels, from chemistry classrooms to advanced textbooks, the recommendations are mostly ignored among scientists who work theoretically or experimentally on superheavy elements, who call it "element 126", with the symbol E126, (126), or 126. Some researchers have also referred to unbihexium as eka-plutonium, a name derived from the system Dmitri Mendeleev used to predict unknown elements, though such an extrapolation might not work for g-block elements with no known congeners, and eka-plutonium would instead refer to element 146 or 148 when the term is meant to denote the element directly below plutonium.
Difficulties in synthesis
Every element from mendelevium onward was produced in fusion-evaporation reactions, culminating in the discovery of the heaviest known element oganesson in 2002 and most recently tennessine in 2010. These reactions approached the limit of current technology; for example, the synthesis of tennessine required 22 milligrams of 249Bk and an intense 48Ca beam for six months. The intensity of beams in superheavy element research cannot exceed 1012 projectiles per second without damaging the target and detector, and producing larger quantities of increasingly rare and unstable actinide targets is impractical.
Consequently, future experiments must be done at facilities such as the under-construction superheavy element factory (SHE-factory) at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) or RIKEN, which will allow experiments to run for longer time periods with increased detection capabilities and enable otherwise inaccessible reactions. Even so, it will likely be a great challenge to synthesize elements beyond unbinilium (120) or unbiunium (121), given their short predicted half-lives and low predicted cross sections.
It has been suggested that fusion-evaporation will not be feasible to reach unbihexium. As 48Ca cannot be used beyond elements 118 or possibly 119, the only alternatives are increasing the atomic number of the projectile or studying symmetric or near-symmetric reactions. One calculation suggests that the cross section for producing unbihexium from 249Cf and 64Ni may be as low as nine orders of magnitude lower than the detection limit; such results are also suggested by the non-observation of unbinilium and unbibium in reactions with heavier projectiles and experimental cross section limits. If Z = 126 represents a closed proton shell, compound nuclei may have greater survival probability and the use of 64Ni may be more feasible for producing nuclei with 122 < Z < 126, especially for compound nuclei near the closed shell at N = 184. However, the cross section still might not exceed 1 fb, posing an obstacle that may only be overcome with more sensitive equipment.
Nuclear stability and isotopes
This nuclear chart used by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency predicts the decay modes of nuclei up to Z = 149 and N = 256. At Z = 126 (top right), the beta-stability line passes through a region of instability towards spontaneous fission (half-lives less than 1 nanosecond) and extends into a "cape" of stability near the N = 228 shell closure, where an island of stability centered at the possibly doubly magic isotope 354Ubh may exist.
This diagram depicts shell gaps in the nuclear shell model. Shell gaps are created when more energy is required to reach the shell at the next higher energy level, thus resulting in a particularly stable configuration. For protons, the shell gap at Z = 82 corresponds to the peak of stability at lead, and while there is disagreement of the magicity of Z = 114 and Z = 120, a shell gap appears at Z = 126, thus suggesting that there may be a proton shell closure at unbihexium.
In this region of the periodic table, N = 184 and N = 228 have been suggested as closed neutron shells, and various atomic numbers, including Z = 126, have been proposed as closed proton shells.[j] The extent of stabilizing effects in the region of unbihexium is uncertain, however, due to predictions of shifting or weakening of the proton shell closure and possible loss of double magicity. More recent research predicts the island of stability to instead be centered at beta-stable isotopes of copernicium (291Cn and 293Cn) or flerovium (Z = 114), which would place unbihexium well above the island and result in short half-lives regardless of shell effects.
Earlier models suggested the existence of long-lived nuclear isomers resistant to spontaneous fission in the region near 310Ubh, with half-lives on the order of millions or billions of years. However, more rigorous calculations as early as the 1970s yielded contradictory results; it is now believed that the island of stability is not centered at 310Ubh, and thus will not enhance the stability of this nuclide. Instead, 310Ubh is thought to be very neutron-deficient and susceptible to alpha decay and spontaneous fission in less than a microsecond, and it may even lie at or beyond the proton drip line. A 2016 calculation on the decay properties of 288-339Ubh upholds these predictions; the isotopes lighter than 313Ubh (including 310Ubh) may indeed lie beyond the drip line and decay by proton emission, 313-327Ubh will alpha decay, possibly reaching flerovium and livermorium isotopes, and heavier isotopes will decay by spontaneous fission. This study and a quantum tunneling model predict alpha-decay half-lives under a microsecond for isotopes lighter than 318Ubh, rendering them impossible to identify experimentally.[k] Hence, the isotopes 318-327Ubh may be synthesized and detected, and may even constitute a region of increased stability against fission around N ~ 198 with half-lives up to several seconds.
Beyond this point, a "sea of instability" defined by very low fission barriers (caused by greatly increasing Coulomb repulsion in superheavy elements) and consequently fission half-lives on the order of 10-18 seconds are predicted among various models. Although the exact limit of stability for half-lives over one microsecond varies, stability against fission is strongly dependent on the N = 184 and N = 228 shell closures and rapidly drops off immediately beyond the influence of the shell closure. Such an effect may be reduced, however, if nuclear deformation in intermediate isotopes may lead to a shift in magic numbers; a similar phenomenon was observed in the deformed doubly magic nucleus 270Hs. This shift could then lead to longer half-lives, perhaps on the order of days, for isotopes such as 342Ubh that would also lie on the beta-stability line. A second island of stability for spherical nuclei may exist in unbihexium isotopes with many more neutrons, centered at 354Ubh and conferring additional stability in N = 228 isotones near the beta-stability line. Originally, a short half-life of 39 milliseconds was predicted for 354Ubh toward spontaneous fission, though a partial alpha half-life for this isotope was predicted to be 18 years. More recent analysis suggests that this isotope may have a half-life on the order of 100 years should the closed shells have strong stabilizing effects, placing it at the peak of an island of stability. It may also be possible that 354Ubh is not doubly magic, as the Z = 126 shell is predicted to be relatively weak, or in some calculations, completely nonexistent. This suggests that any relative stability in unbihexium isotopes would be only due to neutron shell closures that may or may not have a stabilizing effect at Z = 126.
Unbihexium is expected to be the sixth member of a superactinide series. It may have similarities to plutonium, as both elements have eight valence electrons over a noble gas core. In the superactinide series, the Aufbau principle is expected to break down due to relativistic effects, and an overlap of the energy levels of the 7d, 8p, and especially 5g and 6f orbitals is expected, which renders predictions of chemical and atomic properties of these elements very difficult. The ground state electron configuration of unbihexium is thus predicted to be [Og] 5g2 6f3 8s2 8p1 or 5g1 6f4 8s2 8p1, in contrast to [Og] 5g6 8s2 derived from Aufbau.
As with the other early superactinides, it is predicted that unbihexium will be able to lose all eight valence electrons in chemical reactions, rendering a variety of oxidation states up to +8 possible. The +4 oxidation state is predicted to be most common, in addition to +2 and +6. Unbihexium should be able to form the tetroxide UbhO4 and hexahalides UbhF6 and UbhCl6, the latter with a fairly strong bond dissociation energy of 2.68 eV. It may also be possible for unbihexium to form a stable monofluoride UbhF. Calculations suggest that a diatomic UbhF molecule will feature a bond between the 5g orbital in unbihexium and the 2p orbital in fluorine, thus characterizing unbihexium as an element whose 5g electrons should actively participate in bonding. It is also predicted that the Ubh6+ (in particular, in UbhF6) and Ubh7+ ions will have the electron configurations [Og] 5g2 and [Og] 5g1, respectively, in contrast to the [Og] 6f1 configuration seen in Ubt4+ and Ubq5+ that bears more resemblance to their actinide homologs. The activity of 5g electrons may influence the chemistry of superactinides such as unbihexium in new ways that are difficult to predict, as no known elements have electrons in a g orbital in the ground state.
^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 or 112; sometimes, the term is presented an equivalent to the term "transactinide", which puts an upper limit before the beginning of the hypothetical superactinide series). 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.
^In 2009, a team at 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. 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.
^The greater the excitation energy, the more neutrons are ejected. If the excitation energy is lower than energy binding each neutron to the rest of the nucleus, neutrons are not emitted; instead, the compound nucleus de-excites by emitting a gamma ray.
^The definition by the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party 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. This figure also marks the generally accepted upper limit for lifetime of a compound nucleus.
^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. 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.
^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 heaviest nuclei. The first direct measurement of mass of a superheavy nucleus was reported in 2018 at LBNL. 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).
^Spontaneous fission was discovered by Soviet physicist Georgy Flerov, a leading scientist at JINR, and thus it was a "hobbyhorse" for the facility. 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. They thus preferred to link new isotopes to the already known ones by successive alpha decays.
^For instance, element 102 was mistakenly identified in 1957 at the Nobel Institute of Physics in Stockholm, Stockholm County, Sweden. 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. The following year, LBNL was unable to reproduce the Swedish results and announced instead their synthesis of the element; that claim was also disproved later. JINR insisted that they were the first to create the element and suggested a name of their own for the new element, joliotium; the Soviet name was also not accepted (JINR later referred to the naming of element 102 as "hasty"). The name "nobelium" remained unchanged on account of its widespread usage.
^Atomic numbers 114, 120, 122, 124 have also been suggested as closed proton shells in different models.
^While such nuclei may be synthesized and a series of decay signals may be registered, decays faster than one microsecond may pile up with subsequent signals and thus be indistinguishable, especially when multiple uncharacterized nuclei may be formed and emit a series of similar alpha particles. The main difficulty is thus attributing the decays to the correct parent nucleus, as a superheavy atom that decays before reaching the detector will not be registered at all.
^"? ? ? . ()" [Popular library of chemical elements. Seaborgium (eka-tungsten)]. n-t.ru (in Russian). Retrieved . Reprinted from "" [Eka-tungsten]. ? ? ? . ? -- ? ? [Popular library of chemical elements. Silver through nielsbohrium and beyond] (in Russian). Nauka. 1977.
^Chatt, J. (1979). "Recommendations for the naming of elements of atomic numbers greater than 100". Pure and Applied Chemistry. 51 (2): 381-384. doi:10.1351/pac197951020381.
^Haire, Richard G. (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. p. 1724. ISBN1-4020-3555-1.
^ abHoffman, 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. ISBN1-4020-3555-1.
^Malli, G.L. (2007). "Thirty years of relativistic self-consistent field theory for molecules: relativistic and electron correlation effects for atomic and molecular systems of transactinide superheavy elements up to ekaplutonium E126 with g-atomic spinors in the ground state configuration". Theoretical Chemistry Accounts. 118 (3): 473-482. doi:10.1007/s00214-007-0335-1.