From the “not etched in stone department”, via Eurekalert we learn that Atomic weights of 10 elements on periodic table about to make an historic change showing that everything we thought we knew, is still subject to revision as we learn more.
Researchers from around the world compile more reliable data that will help science and industry
For the first time in history, a change will be made to the atomic weights of some elements listed on the Periodic table of the chemical elements posted on walls of chemistry classrooms and on the inside covers of chemistry textbooks worldwide.
The new table, outlined in a report released this month, will express atomic weights of 10 elements – hydrogen, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, chlorine and thallium – in a new manner that will reflect more accurately how these elements are found in nature.
“For more than a century and a half, many were taught to use standard atomic weights — a single value — found on the inside cover of chemistry textbooks and on the periodic table of the elements. As technology improved, we have discovered that the numbers on our chart are not as static as we have previously believed,” says Dr. Michael Wieser, an associate professor at the University of Calgary, who serves as secretary of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry‘s (IUPAC) Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights. This organization oversees the evaluation and dissemination of atomic-weight values.
Modern analytical techniques can measure the atomic weight of many elements precisely, and these small variations in an element’s atomic weight are important in research and industry. For example, precise measurements of the abundances of isotopes of carbon can be used to determine purity and source of food, such as vanilla and honey. Isotopic measurements of nitrogen, chlorine and other elements are used for tracing pollutants in streams and groundwater. In sports doping investigations, performance-enhancing testosterone can be identified in the human body because the atomic weight of carbon in natural human testosterone is higher than that in pharmaceutical testosterone.
The atomic weights of these 10 elements now will be expressed as intervals, having upper and lower bounds, reflected to more accurately convey this variation in atomic weight. The changes to be made to the Table of Standard Atomic Weights have been published in Pure and Applied Chemistry and a companion article in Chemistry International.
For example, sulfur is commonly known to have a standard atomic weight of 32.065. However, its actual atomic weight can be anywhere between 32.059 and 32.076, depending on where the element is found. “In other words, knowing the atomic weight can be used to decode the origins and the history of a particular element in nature,” says Wieser who co-authored the report.
Elements with only one stable isotope do not exhibit variations in their atomic weights. For example, the standard atomic weights for fluorine, aluminum, sodium and gold are constant, and their values are known to better than six decimal places.
“Though this change offers significant benefits in the understanding of chemistry, one can imagine the challenge now to educators and students who will have to select a single value out of an interval when doing chemistry calculations,” says Dr. Fabienne Meyers, associate director of IUPAC.
“We hope that chemists and educators will take this challenge as a unique opportunity to encourage the interest of young people in chemistry and generate enthusiasm for the creative future of chemistry.”
The University of Calgary has and continues to contribute substantially in the study of atomic weight variations. Professor H. Roy Krouse created the Stable Isotope Laboratory in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in 1971. Early work by Krouse established the wide natural range in the atomic weight of significant elements including carbon and sulfur. Currently, researchers at the University of Calgary in physics, environmental science, chemistry and geoscience are exploiting variations in atomic weights to elucidate the origins of meteorites, to determine sources of pollutants to air and water, and to study the fate of injected carbon dioxide in geological media.
This fundamental change in the presentation of the atomic weights is based upon work between 1985 and 2010 supported by IUPAC, the University of Calgary and other contributing Commission members and institutions.
The year 2011 has been designated as the International Year of Chemistry. The IYC is an official United Nations International Year, proclaimed at the UN as a result of the initiative of IUPAC and UNESCO. IUPAC will feature the change in the standard atomic weights table as part of associated IYC activities.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

I LOVE electrons! It’s akin to erector sets! Without the connectors, how do you build H2O? There is no better or more fun experiment than building a molecule. Who wants to paint with the primary colors???? I like to mix things up. And without electrons, my experimental fun is ended!
A case in point, I discovered that zirconium burns quite readily. That’s cool. But the jewel we all know as zircon (ZrSiO4) is as beautiful, if not more so, than diamonds. All because of electrons attracting each other between different elements.
Electrons rule, nucleus stuff drools!
It will be interesting to see them change the atomic weight of C-12.
Hmm, I wonder if the chemists were feeling a bit left out? you know with all this meteorological ‘science’, climate science, earth science, physics, geophysics, etc, etc – all being dragged headlong into the AGW arena – the chemistry side has been rather ‘lacking’ in its input?
Perhaps, they thought if they put a ‘range’ on some common elements, it would enable them to get more involved re-doing some calculations and giving error bars, etc! LOL
(ps -only joking, before any chemists get stressed out!)
“Forget electrons. Whatever happened to just adding up the protons and neutrons.”
OK, let’s try that.
H-1= One proton, (and one electron) so the atomic mass is 1, right? No, it’s 1.007825.
H-2= One proton, one neutron (and one electron)… mass=2? Nope: 2.014102.
You may have noticed that H-2’s mass is not QUITE double what H-1’s mass is. The difference is the Nuclear Binding Energy, and it’s very important. As you add protons and neutrons to make larger nuclei, this binding energy is larger than the constituent parts, which is what powers the Sun. The binding energy per nucleon hits a pretty big local maximum at He-4, and doesn’t rise above it until the next local maximum, C-12. From there it falls off slightly, but generally increases until the absolute max. of Fe-56, which has a mass of only 55.934937 atomic mass units. Below that max, fusion generally releases energy, and fission absorbs it. Above that level, fusion absorbs energy and fission releases it, as the average binding energy per nucleon slowly falls off.
The AMU itself was defined by arbitrarily assigning C-12 the exact mass 12.
performance-enhancing testosterone can be identified in the human body because the atomic weight of carbon in natural human testosterone is higher than that in pharmaceutical testosterone.
Get Albert Pujols and Manny Pacquiao in line for the test now.
Richard M says: Add to that, scientists now think the neutrino has non-zero mass and some previously declared physical constants may not be constant across the universe, and we have the makings of some big changes in Physics.
Odd you should mention that… I’ve just collected a set of Feynman talks here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/on-the-sillyness-of-consensus/
and in the one of them he discusses the probability that the laws of physics ‘evolved’ over time and may not have always been constant… (Which implies they might still be changing today.)
Part 3 of 4 of taking the world from “another pont of view”:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNOghidK2TY&fs=1&hl=en_US]
(It helps a little to have the whole set in order at the top link, but if you have some physics background you can drop in directly here.)
Does this mean that Tom Lehrer is going to have to redo his great song!
Although as a good scientist he does leave room for change in what is known in the last line.
Revised raw data again. Outrageous!
I’ll have raw vs GISS homogenized blink charts for hydrogen, lithium, boron, carbon, and nitrogen up in a jiffy.
I don’t have Version 1 for oxygen, silicon, sulfur, chlorine, and thallium.
Nice to see the periodic table in the news yet again!
For a full account of the development and meaning of the periodic table see my recent book,
Eric Scerri, The Periodic Table, Its Story & Its Significance, Oxford University Press, 2007.
http://www.amazon.com/Periodic-Table-Its-Story-Significance/dp/0195305736/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1288819786&sr=1-1
all the best
Eric Scerri,
UCLA, Chemistry Dept.
How dare they let the scientific method get in the way of years of concensus. That’s no way to practice science!
@anthony
“everything we thought we knew, is still subject to revision as we learn more”
Yabbut in this case nothing new was learned. It’s just a change in notation akin to changing gasoline pumps so they indicate pounds of fuel pumped instead of gallons. Except that would be a good change where this periodic table change is just the grand exalted mystic poobah of standard weights and measures doing nothing more significant than a dog peeing on a tree because a) he wants to make a mark for posterity and b) because he can.
For the first time in history, a change will be made to the atomic weights of some elements listed on the Periodic table of the chemical elements posted on walls of chemistry classrooms and on the inside covers of chemistry textbooks worldwide
————-
I don’t believe it’s the first time in history.
Phil’s Dad says:
December 15, 2010 at 4:09 pm
I wonder if this makes any difference to the recorded proportion of fossil v contemporary CO2 in the atmosphere which is measured using the isotopes that have just been “re-expressed”?
———–
The isotopic masses have not changed.
The CO2 in the atmosphere is diagnosed using ratios of numbers of molecules (essentially). So it’s not relevant.
I can’t imagine how young people will control themselves.
“The new table, outlined in a report released this month, will express atomic weights of 10 elements – hydrogen, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, chlorine and thallium – in a new manner that will reflect more accurately how these elements are found in nature.”
Is this the “nature of the solar system” or the “nature of the local group” or the nature of the universe”? Besides, high school kids are having enough trouble these days on the web getting the right answer, so what’s the good gained by messing up the google search for the right, “new” periodic table? Modern Education sucks! (SarcOff)
James B;
yaass — “This is all the elements, Of which the news has come to Hahvard; There may be many others, But they haven’t been discahvered!” His most dramatic elemental reference was, IMO, “When they see us coming, The pigeons all try’nhide, But they still go for peanuts When covered with cyanhiiide …!” Such a sweetheart!
——
That collection of changing elements put me strongly in mind of my favorite ongoing experimental project: p + B11 –> C12 –> 3 He4 . Plus lotsa energy. At LPPX.com .
Hm, “These are”? “This is”? Memory fails … grammar is ambiguous …
OK, went back to my mp3 of the song: “These are the only ones of which the news has come to Hahvard; And there may be many others but they haven’t been discahvered.”
Then Carbon will change to GORENIUM?, Lead will be called Hansenium, Sulphur Mannenium, and so on 🙂
I suspect that from that change on, it will not reflect anymore its correspondence with the various frequencies of the musical octave, as the original Mendeleev table shown.
A similar attempt was unsuccessfully tried when, after the French Revolution, it was established a square angle of 100 degrees (!!) or a circle of 400 degrees (!!), etc.
Its purpose: To disrupt any possible relation with a Logos. In other words, to secularize the world.
Curiousgeorge says:
“For a statistician, all measurements are imprecise, ”
How many children do you have? 0, 1, 2 … or 1.4376?
E.M.Smith says:
December 15, 2010 at 8:48 pm
…the laws of physics ‘evolved’ over time..
Global Governance is about confusion…
This universe, which is the same for all, has not been made by any god or man, but it always has been, is, and will be an ever-living fire, kindling itself by regular measures and going out by regular measures.
Heraclitus of Ephesus
Being a scientist involved in FTMS mass spectrometry, I do take the electrons into account. And every accurate mass (6 decimals) of any isotope of any element present in an unidentified metabolite. And the isotopic ratio of isotopes of one element, which does indeed allow to discriminate between the origin of the molecule in question.
If not I will unneccesarily increase the number of possible molecular formulas.
dbleader61:
You suggest;
“2011 may indeed be the begining of the end of AGW.”
No. The begining of the end of AGW was in 2009. It happened in Copenhagen.
Richard
What we demand are rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!
I’ve lost interest in what these new kids on the block have to say since they demoted Pluto.
In my world and Solar sytem Pluto is still a planet!
And AGW is manure!
Good to see that Sodium is not on the IUPAC update list.
At a social gathering, a few women were upset that the men in their lives didn’t seem to remember things they deemed important. As the discussion forged on, I asked the woman sitting next to me … “What is the molecular weight of Sodium?” When she asked who could possibly need to know that, I told her it was a number that I used regularly, and had committed to memory. At least a few people chucked, which was my intent in mentioning it. Please don’t think I am trying to start a women vs men argument. My point of view in that discussion was that we are all exposed to so much information that sometimes the ‘new’ can crowd out the ‘old’ in our day to day working memory. True story, as best I remember it. 🙂