Seaborgium

Seaborgium is a synthetic chemical element with the symbol Sg and atomic number 106. It is named after
the American nuclear chemist Glenn T. Seaborg. As a synthetic element, it can be created in a laboratory Seaborgium, 106Sg
but is not found in nature. It is also radioactive; the most stable known isotope, 269Sg, has a half-life of Seaborgium
approximately 14 minutes.[5] Pronunciation /siːˈbɔːrɡiəm/ ( listen)

In the periodic table of the elements, it is a d-block transactinide element. It is a member of the 7th period (see-BOR-ghee-əm)
and belongs to the group 6 elements as the fourth member of the 6d series of transition metals. Chemistry Mass number [269]
experiments have confirmed that seaborgium behaves as the heavier homologue to tungsten in group 6. The Seaborgium in the periodic table
chemical properties of seaborgium are characterized only partly, but they compare well with the chemistry
of the other group 6 elements. W
↑
Sg
In 1974, a few atoms of seaborgium were produced in laboratories in the Soviet Union and in the United ↓
States. The priority of the discovery and therefore the naming of the element was disputed between Soviet (Uhn)
and American scientists, and it was not until 1997 that International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry dubnium ← seaborgium → bohrium
(IUPAC) established seaborgium as the official name for the element. It is one of only two elements named Atomic number (Z) 106
after a living person at the time of naming, the other being oganesson, element 118.
Group group 6
Period period 7

Contents Block d-block

Element category Transition metal
Introduction
Electron [Rn] 5f14 6d4 7s2[1]
History
configuration
Isotopes
Electrons per 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 12, 2
Properties shell
Physical
Physical properties
Chemical
Phase at STP solid (predicted)[2]
Experimental chemistry
Density (near r.t.) 35.0 g/cm3 (predicted)[1][3]
Notes
Atomic properties
References
Oxidation states 0, (+3), (+4), (+5), +6[1][3]
Bibliography
(parenthesized: prediction)
External links
Ionization 1st: 757 kJ/mol
energies 2nd: 1733 kJ/mol
Introduction 3rd: 2484 kJ/mol
(more) (all but first
A superheavy[a] atomic nucleus is created in a nuclear reaction that estimated)[1]
combines two other nuclei of unequal size[b] into one; roughly, the
more unequal the two nuclei in terms of mass, the greater the Atomic radius empirical: 132 pm
possibility that the two react.[12] The material made of the heavier (predicted)[1]
nuclei is made into a target, which is then bombarded by the beam Covalent radius 143 pm (estimated)[4]
of lighter nuclei. Two nuclei can only fuse into one if they approach
Other properties
each other closely enough; normally, nuclei (all positively charged)
repel each other due to electrostatic repulsion. The strong Natural synthetic
interaction can overcome this repulsion but only within a very short occurrence
distance from a nucleus; beam nuclei are thus greatly accelerated in
Crystal structure body-centered cubic (bcc)
order to make such repulsion insignificant compared to the velocity
(predicted)[2]
of the beam nucleus.[13] Coming close alone is not enough for two
A graphic depiction of a nuclear
nuclei to fuse: when two nuclei approach each other, they usually
fusion reaction. Two nuclei fuse into
one, emitting a neutron. Reactions
remain together for approximately 10−20 seconds and then part
ways (not necessarily in the same composition as before the CAS Number 54038-81-2
that created new elements to this
moment were similar, with the only reaction) rather than form a single nucleus.[13][14] If fusion does History
possible difference that several occur, the temporary merger—termed a compound nucleus—is an
Naming after Glenn T. Seaborg
singular neutrons sometimes were excited state. To lose its excitation energy and reach a more stable
released, or none at all. state, a compound nucleus either fissions or ejects one or several Discovery Lawrence Berkeley
neutrons,[c] which carry away the energy. This occurs in National Laboratory (1974)
approximately 10−16 seconds after the initial collision.[15][d] Main isotopes of seaborgium
External video
Visualization (https://www.youtub The beam passes through the target and reaches the next chamber, Iso‐ Abun‐ Half-life Decay Pro‐
the separator; if a new nucleus is produced, it is carried with this tope dance (t1/2) mode duct
e.com/watch?v=YovAFlzFtzg) of
beam.[18] In the separator, the newly produced nucleus is separated
unsuccessful nuclear fusion, based 265Sg syn 8.9 s α 261Rf
from other nuclides (that of the original beam and any other
on calculations by the Australian
reaction products)[e] and transferred to a surface-barrier detector, 265mSg syn 16.2 s α 261mRf
National University[6] which stops the nucleus. The exact location of the upcoming
impact on the detector is marked; also marked are its energy and 267Sg syn 1.4 min 17% α 263Rf

the time of the arrival.[18] The transfer takes about 10−6 seconds; in order to be detected, the nucleus must
83%
survive this long.[21] The nucleus is recorded again once its decay is registered, and the location, the
energy, and the time of the decay are measured.[18] SF
Stability of a nucleus is provided by the strong interaction. However, its range is very short; as nuclei 269Sg syn 14 min[5] α 265Rf
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.[22] 67% α 267Rf

Superheavy nuclei are thus theoretically predicted[23] and have so far been observed[24] to predominantly 271Sg syn 1.6 min 33%
decay via decay modes that are caused by such repulsion: alpha decay and spontaneous fission.[f] Alpha
decays are registered by the emitted alpha particles, and the decay products are easy to determine before the SF
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.[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 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.[i]

History
Following claims of the observation of elements 104 and 105 in 1970 by Albert Ghiorso et al. at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a search for
element 106 using oxygen-18 projectiles and the previously used californium-249 target was conducted.[36] Several 9.1 MeV alpha decays were reported and
are now thought to originate from element 106, though this was not confirmed at the time. In 1972, the HILAC accelerator received equipment upgrades,
preventing the team from repeating the experiment, and data analysis was not done during the shutdown.[36] This reaction was tried again several years later, in
1974, and the Berkeley team realized that their new data agreed with their 1971 data, to the astonishment of Ghiorso. Hence, element 106 could have actually
been discovered in 1971 if the original data was analyzed more carefully.[36]

Two groups claimed discovery of the element. Unambiguous evidence of element 106 was first reported in 1974 by a Russian research team in Dubna led by
Yuri Oganessian, in which targets of lead-208 and lead-207 were bombarded with accelerated ions of chromium-54. In total, fifty-one spontaneous fission
events were observed with a half-life between four and ten milliseconds. After having ruled out nucleon transfer reactions as a cause for these activities, the
team concluded that the most likely cause of the activities was the spontaneous fission of isotopes of element 106. The isotope in question was first suggested
to be seaborgium-259, but was later corrected to seaborgium-260.[37]

208
82Pb + 54 260
24Cr → 106Sg + 2 n
207
82Pb + 54 260
24Cr → 106Sg + n

A few months later in 1974, researchers including Glenn T. Seaborg, Carol Alonso and Albert Ghiorso at the University of California, Berkeley, and E.
Kenneth Hulet from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, also synthesized the element[38] by bombarding a californium-249 target with oxygen-18
ions, using equipment similar to that which had been used for the synthesis of element 104 five years earlier, observing at least seventy alpha decays,
seemingly from the isotope seaborgium-263m with a half-life of 0.9 ± 0.2 seconds. The alpha daughter rutherfordium-259 and granddaughter nobelium-255
had previously been synthesised and the properties observed here matched with those previously known, as did the intensity of their production. The cross-
section of the reaction observed, 0.3 nanobarns, also agreed well with theoretical predictions. These bolstered the assignment of the alpha decay events to
seaborgium-263m.[37]

249
98Cf + 188O → 263m 1 259 255
106Sg + 4 0n → 104Rf + α → 102No + α

A dispute thus arose from the initial competing claims of discovery, though unlike the case of the synthetic elements up to element 105, neither team of
discoverers chose to announce proposed names for the new elements, thus averting an element naming controversy temporarily. The dispute on discovery,
however, dragged on until 1992, when the IUPAC/IUPAP Transfermium Working Group (TWG), formed to put an end to the controversy by making
conclusions regarding discovery claims for elements 101 to 112, concluded that the Soviet synthesis of seaborgium-260 was not convincing enough, "lacking
as it is in yield curves and angular selection results", whereas the American synthesis of seaborgium-263 was convincing due to its being firmly anchored to
known daughter nuclei. As such, the TWG recognised the Berkeley team as official discoverers in their 1993 report.[37]

Seaborg had previously suggested to the TWG that if Berkeley was recognised as the official discoverer of elements
104 and 105, they might propose the name kurchatovium (symbol Kt) for element 106 to honour the Dubna team,
which had proposed this name for element 104 after Igor Kurchatov, the former head of the Soviet nuclear research
programme. However, due to the worsening relations between the competing teams after the publication of the TWG
report (because the Berkeley team vehemently disagreed with the TWG's conclusions, especially regarding element
104), this proposal was dropped from consideration by the Berkeley team.[39] After being recognized as official
discoverers, the Berkeley team started deciding on a name in earnest:

...we were given credit for the discovery and the accompanying right to name the new element. The eight
members of the Ghiorso group suggested a wide range of names honoring Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison,
Leonardo da Vinci, Ferdinand Magellan, the mythical Ulysses, George Washington, and Finland, the
native land of a member of the team. There was no focus and no front-runner for a long period.
Then one day Al [Ghiorso] walked into my office and asked what I thought of naming element 106
"seaborgium." I was floored.[40]
Element 106 was named after Glenn
— Glenn Seaborg T. Seaborg, a pioneer in the
discovery of synthetic elements, with
Seaborg's son Eric remembered the naming process as follows:[41] the name seaborgium (Sg).

With eight scientists involved in the discovery suggesting so many good possibilities, Ghiorso despaired
of reaching consensus, until he awoke one night with an idea. He approached the team members one by
one, until seven of them had agreed. He then told his friend and colleague of 50 years: "We have seven
votes in favor of naming element 106 seaborgium. Will you give your consent?" My father was
flabbergasted, and, after consulting my mother, agreed.[41]
 — Eric Seaborg

The name seaborgium and symbol Sg were announced at the 207th national meeting of the American Chemical Society
in March 1994 by Kenneth Hulet, one of the co-discovers.[40] However, IUPAC resolved in August 1994 that an
element could not be named after a living person, and Seaborg was still alive at the time. Thus, in September 1994,
IUPAC recommended a set of names in which the names proposed by the three laboratories (the third being the GSI
Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany) with competing claims to the discovery for
elements 104 to 109 were shifted to various other elements, in which rutherfordium (Rf), the Berkeley proposal for
element 104, was shifted to element 106, with seaborgium being dropped entirely as a name.[39]

An aged Seaborg pointing to the

element named after him on the
periodic table

Summary of element naming proposals and final decisions for elements 101–112 (those covered in the TWG report)[39]
Atomic Compromise
Systematic American Russian German IUPAC 94 ACS 94 IUPAC 95 IUPAC 97 Present
number 92
101 unnilunium mendelevium — — mendelevium mendelevium mendelevium mendelevium mendelevium mendelevium
102 unnilbium nobelium joliotium — joliotium nobelium nobelium flerovium nobelium nobelium
103 unniltrium lawrencium rutherfordium — lawrencium lawrencium lawrencium lawrencium lawrencium lawrencium
104 unnilquadium rutherfordium kurchatovium — meitnerium dubnium rutherfordium dubnium rutherfordium rutherfordium
105 unnilpentium hahnium nielsbohrium — kurchatovium joliotium hahnium joliotium dubnium dubnium
106 unnilhexium seaborgium — — rutherfordium rutherfordium seaborgium seaborgium seaborgium seaborgium
107 unnilseptium — — nielsbohrium nielsbohrium bohrium nielsbohrium nielsbohrium bohrium bohrium
108 unniloctium — — hassium hassium hahnium hassium hahnium hassium hassium
109 unnilennium — — meitnerium hahnium meitnerium meitnerium meitnerium meitnerium meitnerium
110 ununnilium hahnium becquerelium darmstadtium — — — — — darmstadtium
111 unununium — — roentgenium — — — — — roentgenium
112 ununbium — — copernicium — — — — — copernicium

This decision ignited a firestorm of worldwide protest for disregarding the historic discoverer's right to name new elements, and against the new retroactive
rule against naming elements after living persons; the American Chemical Society stood firmly behind the name seaborgium for element 106, together with all
the other American and German naming proposals for elements 104 to 109, approving these names for its journals in defiance of IUPAC.[39] At first, IUPAC
defended itself, with an American member of its committee writing: "Discoverers don't have a right to name an element. They have a right to suggest a name.
And, of course, we didn't infringe on that at all." However, Seaborg responded:

This would be the first time in history that the acknowledged and uncontested discoverers of an element are denied the privilege of naming it.[40]

— Glenn Seaborg

Bowing to public pressure, IUPAC proposed a different compromise in August 1995, in which the name seaborgium was reinstated for element 106 in
exchange for the removal of all but one of the other American proposals, which met an even worse response. Finally, IUPAC rescinded these previous
compromises and made a final, new recommendation in August 1997, in which the American and German proposals for elements 104 to 109 were all adopted,
including seaborgium for element 106, with the single exception of element 105, named dubnium to recognise the contributions of the Dubna team to the
experimental procedures of transactinide synthesis. This list was finally accepted by the American Chemical Society, which wrote:[39]

In the interest of international harmony, the Committee reluctantly accepted the name 'dubnium' for element 105 in place of 'hahnium' [the
American proposal], which has had long-standing use in literature. We are pleased to note that 'seaborgium' is now the internationally approved
name for element 106.[39]

— American Chemical Society

Seaborg commented regarding the naming:

I am, needless to say, proud that U.S. chemists recommended that element 106, which is placed under tungsten (74), be called 'seaborgium.' I was
looking forward to the day when chemical investigators will refer to such compounds as seaborgous chloride, seaborgic nitrate, and perhaps,
sodium seaborgate.
This is the greatest honor ever bestowed upon me—even better, I think, than winning the Nobel Prize.[j] Future students of chemistry, in learning
about the periodic table, may have reason to ask why the element was named for me, and thereby learn more about my work.[40]

— Glenn Seaborg

Seaborg died a year and a half later, on 25 February 1999, at the age of 86.[40]

Isotopes
Superheavy elements such as seaborgium are produced by bombarding lighter elements in List of seaborgium isotopes
particle accelerators that induces fusion reactions. Whereas most of the isotopes of seaborgium
Half-life Decay Discovery
can be synthesized directly this way, some heavier ones have only been observed as decay Isotope [43][44] mode[43][44] year
Reaction
products of elements with higher atomic numbers.[45]
258Sg 3 ms SF 1994 209Bi(51V,2n)

Depending on the energies involved, fusion reactions that generate superheavy elements are 259Sg 600 ms α 1985 207Pb(54Cr,2n)
separated into "hot" and "cold". In hot fusion reactions, very light, high-energy projectiles are
260Sg 4 ms SF, α 1985 208Pb(54Cr,2n)
accelerated toward very heavy targets (actinides), giving rise to compound nuclei at high
excitation energy (~40–50 MeV) that may either fission or evaporate several (3 to 5) 261Sg 200 ms α, EC, SF 1985 208Pb(54Cr,n)
neutrons.[45] In cold fusion reactions, the produced fused nuclei have a relatively low
261mSg 92 μs IT 2009 208Pb(54Cr,n)
excitation energy (~10–20 MeV), which decreases the probability that these products will
undergo fission reactions. As the fused nuclei cool to the ground state, they require emission of 262Sg 7 ms SF, α 2001 270Ds(—,2α)
only one or two neutrons, and thus, allows for the generation of more neutron-rich
263Sg 1s α 1994 271Ds(—,2α)
products.[46] The latter is a distinct concept from that of where nuclear fusion claimed to be
achieved at room temperature conditions (see cold fusion).[47] 263mSg 120 ms α, SF 1974 249Cf(18O,4n)

264Sg 37 ms SF 2006 238U(34Si,4n)

Seaborgium has no stable or naturally occurring isotopes. Several radioactive isotopes have
been synthesized in the laboratory, either by fusing two atoms or by observing the decay of 265Sg 8s α 1993 248Cm(22Ne,5n)
heavier elements. Twelve different isotopes of seaborgium have been reported with atomic
265mSg 16.2 s α 1993 248Cm(22Ne,5n)
masses 258–267, 269, and 271, three of which, seaborgium-261, 263, and 265, have known
metastable states. All of these decay only through alpha decay and spontaneous fission, with 266Sg 360 ms SF 2004 270Hs(—,α)
the single exception of seaborgium-261 that can also undergo electron capture to dubnium- 267Sg 271Hs(—,α)
1.4 min SF, α 2004
261.[43]
269Sg 14 min α 2010 285Fl(—,4α)
There is a trend toward increasing half-lives for the heavier isotopes; thus the heaviest three 271
Sg 2.4 min α 2003 287Fl(—,4α)
known isotopes, 267Sg, 269Sg, and 271Sg, are also the longest-lived, having half-lives in
minutes. Some other isotopes in this region are predicted to have comparable or even longer
half-lives. Additionally, 263Sg, 265Sg, and 265mSg have half-lives measured in seconds. All the remaining isotopes have half-lives measured in milliseconds,
with the exception of the shortest-lived isotope, 261mSg, with a half-life of only 92 microseconds.[43]

The proton-rich isotopes from 258Sg to 261Sg were directly produced by cold fusion; all heavier isotopes were produced from the repeated alpha decay of the
heavier elements hassium, darmstadtium, and flerovium, with the exceptions of the isotopes 263mSg, 264Sg, 265Sg, and 265mSg, which were directly produced
by hot fusion through irradiation of actinide targets. The twelve isotopes of seaborgium have half-lives ranging from 92 microseconds for 261mSg to
14 minutes for 269Sg.[5][43]

Properties
Very few properties of seaborgium or its compounds have been measured; this is due to its extremely limited and expensive production[12] and the fact that
seaborgium (and its parents) decays very quickly. A few singular chemistry-related properties have been measured, but properties of seaborgium metal remain
unknown and only predictions are available.

Physical

Seaborgium is expected to be a solid under normal conditions and assume a body-centered cubic crystal structure, similar to its lighter congener tungsten.[2] It
should be a very heavy metal with a density of around 35.0 g/cm3, which would be the fourth-highest of any of the 118 known elements, lower only than
bohrium (37.1 g/cm3), meitnerium (37.4 g/cm3) and hassium (41 g/cm3), the three following elements in the periodic table.[1] In comparison, the densest
known element that has had its density measured, osmium, has a density of only 22.61 g/cm3. This results from seaborgium's high atomic weight, the
lanthanide and actinide contractions, and relativistic effects, although production of enough seaborgium to measure this quantity would be impractical, and the
sample would quickly decay.[1]

Chemical

Seaborgium is the fourth member of the 6d series of transition metals and the heaviest member of group 6 in the periodic table, below chromium,
molybdenum, and tungsten. All the members of the group form a diversity of oxoanions. They readily portray their group oxidation state of +6, although this is
highly oxidising in the case of chromium, and this state becomes more and more stable to reduction as the group is descended: indeed, tungsten is the last of
the 5d transition metals where all four 5d electrons participate in metallic bonding.[48] As such, seaborgium should have +6 as its most stable oxidation state,
both in the gas phase and in aqueous solution, and this is the only oxidation state that is experimentally known for it; the +5 and +4 states should be less stable,
and the +3 state, the most common for chromium, would be the least stable for seaborgium.[1]

This stabilisation of the highest oxidation state occurs in the early 6d elements because of the similarity between the energies of the 6d and 7s orbitals, since
the 7s orbitals are relativistically stabilised and the 6d orbitals are relativistically destabilised. This effect is so large in the seventh period that seaborgium is
expected to lose its 6d electrons before its 7s electrons (Sg, [Rn]5f146d47s2; Sg+, [Rn]5f146d37s2; Sg2+, [Rn]5f146d37s1; Sg4+, [Rn]5f146d2; Sg6+, [Rn]5f14).
Because of the great destabilisation of the 7s orbital, SgIV should be even more unstable than WIV and should be very readily oxidised to SgVI. The predicted
ionic radius of the hexacoordinate Sg6+ ion is 65 pm, while the predicted atomic radius of seaborgium is 128 pm. Nevertheless, the stability of the highest
oxidation state is still expected to decrease as LrIII > RfIV > DbV > SgVI. Some predicted standard reduction potentials for seaborgium ions in aqueous acidic
solution are as follows:[1]

2 SgO3 + 2 H+ + 2 e− ⇌ Sg2O5 + H2O E0 = −0.046 V

Sg2O5 + 2 H+ + 2 e− ⇌ 2 SgO2 + H2O E0 = +0.11 V
SgO2 + 4 H+ + e− ⇌ Sg3+ + 2 H2O E0 = −1.34 V
Sg3+ + e− ⇌ Sg2+ E0 = −0.11 V
Sg3+ + 3 e− ⇌ Sg E0 = +0.27 V
Seaborgium should form a very volatile hexafluoride (SgF6) as well as a moderately volatile hexachloride (SgCl6), pentachloride (SgCl5), and oxychlorides
SgO2Cl2 and SgOCl4.[3] SgO2Cl2 is expected to be the most stable of the seaborgium oxychlorides and to be the least volatile of the group 6 oxychlorides,
with the sequence MoO2Cl2 > WO2Cl2 > SgO2Cl2.[1] The volatile seaborgium(VI) compounds SgCl6 and SgOCl4 are expected to be unstable to
decomposition to seaborgium(V) compounds at high temperatures, analogous to MoCl6 and MoOCl4; this should not happen for SgO2Cl2 due to the much
higher energy gap between the highest occupied and lowest unoccupied molecular orbitals, despite the similar Sg–Cl bond strengths (similarly to molybdenum
and tungsten).[49]

Molybdenum and tungsten are very similar to each other and show important differences to the smaller chromium, and seaborgium is expected to follow the
chemistry of tungsten and molybdenum quite closely, forming an even greater variety of oxoanions, the simplest among them being seaborgate, SgO2−
4 , which
would form from the rapid hydrolysis of Sg(H2O)6+ 6 , although this would take place less readily than with molybdenum and tungsten as expected from
seaborgium's greater size. Seaborgium should hydrolyse less readily than tungsten in hydrofluoric acid at low concentrations, but more readily at high
concentrations, also forming complexes such as SgO3F− and SgOF−5 : complex formation competes with hydrolysis in hydrofluoric acid.[1]

Experimental chemistry
Experimental chemical investigation of seaborgium has been hampered due to the need to produce it one atom at a time, its short half-life, and the resulting
necessary harshness of the experimental conditions.[50] The isotope 265Sg and its isomer 265mSg are advantageous for radiochemistry: they are produced in the
248Cm(22Ne,5n) reaction.[51]

In the first experimental chemical studies of seaborgium in 1995 and 1996, seaborgium atoms were produced in the reaction 248Cm(22Ne,4n)266Sg,
thermalised, and reacted with an O2/HCl mixture. The adsorption properties of the resulting oxychloride were measured and compared with those of
molybdenum and tungsten compounds. The results indicated that seaborgium formed a volatile oxychloride akin to those of the other group 6 elements, and
confirmed the decreasing trend of oxychloride volatility down group 6:

Sg + O2 + 2 HCl → SgO2Cl2 + H2

In 2001, a team continued the study of the gas phase chemistry of seaborgium by reacting the element with O2 in a H2O environment. In a manner similar to
the formation of the oxychloride, the results of the experiment indicated the formation of seaborgium oxide hydroxide, a reaction well known among the
lighter group 6 homologues as well as the pseudohomologue uranium.[52]

2 Sg + 3 O2 → 2 SgO3
SgO3 + H2O → SgO2(OH)2

Predictions on the aqueous chemistry of seaborgium have largely been confirmed. In experiments conducted in 1997 and 1998, seaborgium was eluted from
cation-exchange resin using a HNO3/HF solution, most likely as neutral SgO2F2 or the anionic complex ion [SgO2F3]− rather than SgO2−
4 . In contrast, in 0.1 M
nitric acid, seaborgium does not elute, unlike molybdenum and tungsten, indicating that the hydrolysis of [Sg(H2O)6]6+ only proceeds as far as the cationic
complex [Sg(OH)4(H2O)]2+ or [Sg(OH)3(H2O)2]+, while that of molybdenum and tungsten proceeds to neutral [MO2(OH)2)].[1]

The only other oxidation state known for seaborgium other than the group oxidation state of +6 is the zero oxidation state. Similarly to its three lighter
congeners, forming chromium hexacarbonyl, molybdenum hexacarbonyl, and tungsten hexacarbonyl, seaborgium has been shown in 2014 to also form
seaborgium hexacarbonyl, Sg(CO)6. Like its molybdenum and tungsten homologues, seaborgium hexacarbonyl is a volatile compound that reacts readily with
silicon dioxide.[50]

Notes
a. 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[7] or 112;[8] sometimes, the term is presented an equivalent to the term "transactinide", which puts an upper
limit before the beginning of the hypothetical superactinide series).[9] 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.
b. 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.[10] In comparison, the reaction that resulted in hassium discovery, 208Pb + 58Fe, had a cross section of ~20 pb (more
+19
specifically, 19−11 pb), as estimated by the discoverers.[11]
c. 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.[15]
d. 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.[16] This figure also marks the generally accepted upper limit for lifetime of a compound nucleus.[17]
e. 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.[19] 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.[20]
f. Not all decay modes are caused by electrostatic repulsion. For example, beta decay is caused by the weak interaction.[25]
g. 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.[26] The first direct
measurement of mass of a superheavy nucleus was reported in 2018 at LBNL.[27] 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).[28]
h. Spontaneous fission was discovered by Soviet physicist Georgy Flerov,[29] a leading scientist at JINR, and thus it was a "hobbyhorse" for the
facility.[30] 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.[17] They thus preferred to link new
isotopes to the already known ones by successive alpha decays.[29]
i. For instance, element 102 was mistakenly identified in 1957 at the Nobel Institute of Physics in Stockholm, Stockholm County, Sweden.[31]
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.[32] 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.[32] JINR insisted that they were
the first to create the element and suggested a name of their own for the new element, joliotium;[33] the Soviet name was also not accepted
(JINR later referred to the naming of element 102 as "hasty").[34] The name "nobelium" remained unchanged on account of its widespread
usage.[35]
j. Seaborg had in fact previously won the 1951 Nobel Prize in Chemistry together with Edwin McMillan for "their discoveries in the chemistry of
the first transuranium elements".[42]
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 1-4020-3555-1.
2. Östlin, A.; Vitos, L. (2011). "First-principles calculation of the
structural stability of 6d transition metals". Physical Review B. 84
(11). Bibcode:2011PhRvB..84k3104O (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.ed
u/abs/2011PhRvB..84k3104O). doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.84.113104
(https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevB.84.113104).
3. Fricke, Burkhard (1975). "Superheavy elements: a prediction of
their chemical and physical properties" (https://www.researchgate.n
et/publication/225672062_Superheavy_elements_a_prediction_of_
their_chemical_and_physical_properties). Recent Impact of
Physics on Inorganic Chemistry. 21: 89–144.
doi:10.1007/BFb0116498 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBFb011649
8). Retrieved 4 October 2013.
4. "Periodic Table, Seaborgium" (http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/ele
ment/106/seaborgium). Royal Chemical Society. Retrieved
20 February 2017.
5. Utyonkov, V. K.; Brewer, N. T.; Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Rykaczewski,
K. P.; Abdullin, F. Sh.; Dimitriev, S. N.; Grzywacz, R. K.; Itkis, M. G.;
Miernik, K.; Polyakov, A. N.; Roberto, J. B.; Sagaidak, R. N.;
Shirokovsky, I. V.; Shumeiko, M. V.; Tsyganov, Yu. S.; Voinov, A. A.;
Subbotin, V. G.; Sukhov, A. M.; Karpov, A. V.; Popeko, A. G.;
Sabel'nikov, A. V.; Svirikhin, A. I.; Vostokin, G. K.; Hamilton, J. H.;
Kovrinzhykh, N. D.; Schlattauer, L.; Stoyer, M. A.; Gan, Z.; Huang,
W. X.; Ma, L. (30 January 2018). "Neutron-deficient superheavy
nuclei obtained in the 240Pu+48Ca reaction" (https://www.research
gate.net/publication/322812255). Physical Review C. 97 (14320):
1–10. Bibcode:2018PhRvC..97a4320U (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.e
du/abs/2018PhRvC..97a4320U).
doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.014320 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhy
sRevC.97.014320).
6. 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 (https://ui.adsabs.harvar
d.edu/abs/2015EPJWC..8600061W).
doi:10.1051/epjconf/20158600061 (https://doi.org/10.1051%2Fepjc
onf%2F20158600061). ISSN 2100-014X (https://www.worldcat.org/
issn/2100-014X).
7. Krämer, K. (2016). "Explainer: superheavy elements" (https://www.
chemistryworld.com/news/explainer-superheavy-elements/101034
5.article). Chemistry World. Retrieved 2020-03-15.
8. "Discovery of Elements 113 and 115" (https://web.archive.org/web/
20150911081623/https://pls.llnl.gov/research-and-development/nu
clear-science/project-highlights/livermorium/elements-113-and-11
5). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Archived from the
original (https://pls.llnl.gov/research-and-development/nuclear-scie
nce/project-highlights/livermorium/elements-113-and-115) on 2015-
09-11. Retrieved 2020-03-15.
9. Eliav, E.; Kaldor, U.; Borschevsky, A. (2018). Scott, R. A. (ed.).
Electronic Structure of the Transactinide Atoms. Encyclopedia of
Inorganic and Bioinorganic Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 1–
16. doi:10.1002/9781119951438.eibc2632 (https://doi.org/10.100
2%2F9781119951438.eibc2632). ISBN 978-1-119-95143-8.
10. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhy
sRevC.79.024608). ISSN 0556-2813 (https://www.worldcat.org/iss
n/0556-2813).
11. Münzenberg, G.; Armbruster, P.; Folger, H.; et al. (1984). "The
identification of element 108" (https://web.archive.org/web/2015060
7124040/http://www.gsi-heavy-ion-researchcenter.org/forschung/k
p/kp2/ship/108-discovery.pdf) (PDF). Zeitschrift für Physik A. 317
(2): 235–236. Bibcode:1984ZPhyA.317..235M (https://ui.adsabs.ha
rvard.edu/abs/1984ZPhyA.317..235M). doi:10.1007/BF01421260
(https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF01421260). Archived from the
original (http://www.gsi-heavy-ion-researchcenter.org/forschung/kp/
kp2/ship/108-discovery.pdf) (PDF) on 7 June 2015. Retrieved
20 October 2012.
12. Subramanian, S. "Making New Elements Doesn't Pay. Just Ask
This Berkeley Scientist" (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feature
s/2019-08-28/making-new-elements-doesn-t-pay-just-ask-this-berk
eley-scientist). Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 2020-01-18.
13. Ivanov, D. (2019). "Сверхтяжелые шаги в неизвестное" (https://n
plus1.ru/material/2019/03/25/120-element) [Superheavy steps into
the unknown]. nplus1.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2020-02-02.
14. Hinde, D. (2017). "Something new and superheavy at the periodic
table" (http://theconversation.com/something-new-and-superheavy-
at-the-periodic-table-26286). The Conversation. Retrieved
2020-01-30.
15. Krása, A. (2010). "Neutron Sources for ADS" (https://pdfs.semantic
scholar.org/ba08/30dcab221b45ca5bcc3cfa8ae82558d624e7.pdf)
(PDF). Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering.
Czech Technical University in Prague. pp. 4–8. Retrieved
October 20, 2019.
16. Wapstra, A. H. (1991). "Criteria that must be satisfied for the
discovery of a new chemical element to be recognized" (http://publi
cations.iupac.org/pac/pdf/1991/pdf/6306x0879.pdf) (PDF). Pure
and Applied Chemistry. 63 (6): 883. doi:10.1351/pac199163060879
(https://doi.org/10.1351%2Fpac199163060879). ISSN 1365-3075
(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1365-3075).
17. Hyde, E. K.; Hoffman, D. C.; Keller, O. L. (1987). "A History and
Analysis of the Discovery of Elements 104 and 105" (http://www.es
cholarship.org/uc/item/05x8w9h7). Radiochimica Acta. 42 (2): 67–
68. doi:10.1524/ract.1987.42.2.57 (https://doi.org/10.1524%2Fract.
1987.42.2.57). ISSN 2193-3405 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/219
3-3405).
18. Chemistry World (2016). "How to Make Superheavy Elements and
Finish the Periodic Table [Video]" (https://www.scientificamerican.c
om/article/how-to-make-superheavy-elements-and-finish-the-period
ic-table-video/). Scientific American. Retrieved 2020-01-27.
19. Hoffman 2000, p. 334.
20. Hoffman 2000, p. 335.
21. Zagrebaev 2013, p. 3.
22. Beiser 2003, p. 432.
23. 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 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.1215).
Bibcode:2013PhRvC..87b4320S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ab
s/2013PhRvC..87b4320S). doi:10.1103/physrevc.87.024320 (http
s://doi.org/10.1103%2Fphysrevc.87.024320). ISSN 0556-2813 (htt
ps://www.worldcat.org/issn/0556-2813).
24. Audi 2017, pp. 030001-129–030001-138.
25. Beiser 2003, p. 439.
26. Oganessian, Yu. Ts.; Rykaczewski, K. P. (2015). "A beachhead on
the island of stability" (https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1337838).
Physics Today. 68 (8): 32–38. Bibcode:2015PhT....68h..32O (http
s://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhT....68h..32O).
doi:10.1063/PT.3.2880 (https://doi.org/10.1063%2FPT.3.2880).
ISSN 0031-9228 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0031-9228).
OSTI 1337838 (https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1337838).
27. Grant, A. (2018). "Weighing the heaviest elements". Physics
Today. doi:10.1063/PT.6.1.20181113a (https://doi.org/10.1063%2F
PT.6.1.20181113a).
28. Howes, L. (2019). "Exploring the superheavy elements at the end
of the periodic table" (https://cen.acs.org/physical-chemistry/periodi
c-table/IYPT-Exploring-the-superheavy-elements-at-the-end-of-the-
periodic-table/97/i21). Chemical & Engineering News. Retrieved
2020-01-27.
29. Robinson, A. E. (2019). "The Transfermium Wars: Scientific
Brawling and Name-Calling during the Cold War" (https://www.scie
ncehistory.org/distillations/the-transfermium-wars-scientific-brawlin
g-and-name-calling-during-the-cold-war). Distillations. Retrieved
2020-02-22.
30. "Популярная библиотека химических элементов. Сиборгий
(экавольфрам)" (http://n-t.ru/ri/ps/pb106.htm) [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.
31. "Nobelium - Element information, properties and uses | Periodic
Table" (https://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/102/nobelium).
Royal Society of Chemistry. Retrieved 2020-03-01.
32. Kragh 2018, pp. 38–39.
33. Kragh 2018, p. 40.
34. 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" (https://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/1993/pdf/6
508x1815.pdf) (PDF). Pure and Applied Chemistry. 65 (8): 1815–
1824. doi:10.1351/pac199365081815 (https://doi.org/10.1351%2Fp
ac199365081815). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2013112
5223512/http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/1993/pdf/6508x181
5.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 25 November 2013. Retrieved
7 September 2016.
35. Commission on Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (1997).
"Names and symbols of transfermium elements (IUPAC
Recommendations 1997)" (http://publications.iupac.org/pac/pdf/19
97/pdf/6912x2471.pdf) (PDF). Pure and Applied Chemistry. 69
(12): 2471–2474. doi:10.1351/pac199769122471 (https://doi.org/1
0.1351%2Fpac199769122471).
36. Hoffman, D.C; Ghiorso, A.; Seaborg, G.T. (2000). The
Transuranium People: The Inside Story. Imperial College Press.
pp. 300–327. ISBN 978-1-86094-087-3.
37. Barber, R. C.; Greenwood, N. N.; Hrynkiewicz, A. Z.; Jeannin, Y. P.;
Lefort, M.; Sakai, M.; Ulehla, I.; Wapstra, A. P.; Wilkinson, D. H.
(1993). "Discovery of the transfermium elements. Part II:
Introduction to discovery profiles. Part III: Discovery profiles of the
transfermium elements". Pure and Applied Chemistry. 65 (8): 1757.
doi:10.1351/pac199365081757 (https://doi.org/10.1351%2Fpac199
365081757).
38. A. Ghiorso, J. M. Nitschke, J. R. Alonso, C. T. Alonso, M. Nurmia,
G. T. Seaborg, E. K. Hulet, R. W. Lougheed (December 1974).
"Element 106". Physical Review Letters. 33 (25): 1490.
Bibcode:1974PhRvL..33.1490G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/
1974PhRvL..33.1490G). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.33.1490 (https://
doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevLett.33.1490).
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 (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ChPhC..41c0001A). doi:10.1088/1674-1137/41/3/030001 (https://d
oi.org/10.1088%2F1674-1137%2F41%2F3%2F030001).
Beiser, A. (2003). Concepts of modern physics (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-244848-1. OCLC 48965418 (https://www.worldcat.org/
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.
39. Hoffman, D.C., Ghiorso, A., Seaborg, G. T. The Transuranium
People: The Inside Story, (2000), 369–399
40. "106 Seaborgium" (http://elements.vanderkrogt.net/element.php?sy
m=sg). Elements.vanderkrogt.net. Retrieved 12 September 2008.
41. Eric, Seaborg (2003). "Seaborgium" (http://pubs.acs.org/cen/80th/s
eaborgium.html). Chemical and Engineering News. 81 (36).
42. "The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1951" (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_p
rizes/chemistry/laureates/1951/index.html). Nobel Foundation.
Retrieved August 26, 2012.
43. Sonzogni, Alejandro. "Interactive Chart of Nuclides" (http://www.nn
dc.bnl.gov/chart/reCenter.jsp?z=107&n=163). National Nuclear
Data Center: Brookhaven National Laboratory. Retrieved
2008-06-06.
44. Gray, Theodore (2002–2010). "The Photographic Periodic Table of
the Elements" (http://periodictable.com/). periodictable.com.
Retrieved 16 November 2012.
45. Barber, Robert C.; Gäggeler, Heinz W.; Karol, Paul J.; Nakahara,
Hiromichi; Vardaci, Emanuele; Vogt, Erich (2009). "Discovery of the
element with atomic number 112 (IUPAC Technical Report)". Pure
and Applied Chemistry. 81 (7): 1331. doi:10.1351/PAC-REP-08-03-
05 (https://doi.org/10.1351%2FPAC-REP-08-03-05).
46. Armbruster, Peter & Munzenberg, Gottfried (1989). "Creating
superheavy elements". Scientific American. 34: 36–42.
47. Fleischmann, Martin; Pons, Stanley (1989). "Electrochemically
induced nuclear fusion of deuterium". Journal of Electroanalytical
Chemistry and Interfacial Electrochemistry. 261 (2): 301–308.
doi:10.1016/0022-0728(89)80006-3 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F00
22-0728%2889%2980006-3).
48. Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the
Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. pp. 1002–39.
ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8.
49. Kratz, J. V. (2003). "Critical evaluation of the chemical properties of
the transactinide elements (IUPAC Technical Report)" (https://www.
degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/pac.2003.75.issue-1/pac2003750101
03/pac200375010103.pdf) (PDF). Pure and Applied Chemistry. 75
(1): 103. doi:10.1351/pac200375010103 (https://doi.org/10.1351%2
Fpac200375010103).
50. Even, J.; Yakushev, A.; Dullmann, C. E.; Haba, H.; Asai, M.; Sato,
T. K.; Brand, H.; Di Nitto, A.; Eichler, R.; Fan, F. L.; Hartmann, W.;
Huang, M.; Jager, E.; Kaji, D.; Kanaya, J.; Kaneya, Y.;
Khuyagbaatar, J.; Kindler, B.; Kratz, J. V.; Krier, J.; Kudou, Y.; Kurz,
N.; Lommel, B.; Miyashita, S.; Morimoto, K.; Morita, K.; Murakami,
M.; Nagame, Y.; Nitsche, H.; et al. (2014). "Synthesis and detection
of a seaborgium carbonyl complex". Science. 345 (6203): 1491–3.
Bibcode:2014Sci...345.1491E (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2
014Sci...345.1491E). doi:10.1126/science.1255720 (https://doi.org/
10.1126%2Fscience.1255720). PMID 25237098 (https://pubmed.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/25237098). (subscription required)
51. Moody, Ken (2013-11-30). "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.
52. Huebener, S.; Taut, S.; Vahle, A.; Dressler, R.; Eichler, B.;
Gäggeler, H. W.; Jost, D. T.; Piguet, D.; et al. (2001). "Physico-
chemical characterization of seaborgium as oxide hydroxide" (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20141025201143/http://www-w2k.gsi.de/k
ernchemie/images/pdf_Artikel/Radiochim_Acta_89_737_2001.pdf)
(PDF). Radiochim. Acta. 89 (11–12_2001): 737–741.
doi:10.1524/ract.2001.89.11-12.737 (https://doi.org/10.1524%2Fra
ct.2001.89.11-12.737). Archived from the original on 2014-10-25.
 Zagrebaev, V.; Karpov, A.; Greiner, W. (2013). "Future of superheavy element research: Which nuclei could be synthesized within the next
few years?". Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 420 (1): 012001. arXiv:1207.5700 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5700).
Bibcode:2013JPhCS.420a2001Z (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013JPhCS.420a2001Z). doi:10.1088/1742-6596/420/1/012001 (https://
doi.org/10.1088%2F1742-6596%2F420%2F1%2F012001). ISSN 1742-6588 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1742-6588).

External links
Chemistry in its element podcast (http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/podcast) (MP3) from the Royal Society of Chemistry's Chemistry World:
Seaborgium (http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/106/seaborgium#podcast)
Seaborgium (http://www.periodicvideos.com/videos/106.htm) at The Periodic Table of Videos (University of Nottingham)
WebElements.com – Seaborgium (http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Sg/index.html)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seaborgium&oldid=950789673"

This page was last edited on 13 April 2020, at 21:11 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.