Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry

ISSN: 0277-2248 (Print) 1029-0486 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gtec20

What are heavy metals? long-standing controversy

over the scientific use of the term ‘heavy
metals’—proposal of a comprehensive definition

Hazrat Ali & Ezzat Khan

To cite this article: Hazrat Ali & Ezzat Khan (2017): What are heavy metals? long-standing
controversy over the scientific use of the term ‘heavy metals’—proposal of a comprehensive
definition, Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, DOI: 10.1080/02772248.2017.1413652

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02772248.2017.1413652

Accepted author version posted online: 07

Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gtec20

Download by: [University of New England] Date: 08 December 2017, At: 06:49
 Publisher: Taylor & Francis

Journal: Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02772248.2017.1413652
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

What are heavy metals? Long-standing controversy over the scientific use of the

term “heavy metals”—Proposal of a comprehensive definition

Hazrat Ali1, 2 * and Ezzat Khan1 *

1
Inorganic Chemistry Section, Department of Chemistry, University of Malakand, Chakdara 18800, Dir

Lower, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

2
Green & Environmental Chemistry, Ecotoxicology and Ecology Laboratory, Department of Zoology,

University of Malakand, Chakdara 18800, Dir Lower, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

*Corresponding authors

E-mail: hazratali@uom.edu.pk; hazrataliuom@gmail.com (H. Ali); ekhan@uom.edu.pk (E. Khan)

Phone: +92-346-9392395 (H. Ali); 0344-9761008 (E. Khan)

Abstract

The term “heavy metals” is commonly used in the environmental literature to refer to metals and

metalloids associated with environmental pollution, toxicity and adverse effects on biota. The term has

been diversely defined, mostly in terms of density, relative atomic mass and atomic number. This
 diversity of definitions has raised questions about the nomenclature of these elements. The inclusion of

the metalloid As and the nonmetal Se with heavy metals is also an important issue. Some people have

called the term as meaningless, imprecise and poorly defined and have suggested abandoning the use of

the term. The term itself may not be problematic but the careless and inconsistent use of terminology

has led to a confusion about the meaning of the term. The use of the term may be continued but it

should be defined in a more comprehensive and scientific way. Here a more comprehensive definition of

the term “heavy metals” is suggested as “naturally occurring metals having atomic number (Z) greater
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

than 20 and an elemental density greater than 5 g cm−3”. A screening of the Periodic Table according to

this definition yields 51 elements to be called “heavy metals”. As and Se are excluded from heavy

metals.

Key Words

Controversy; Definition; Environmental literature; Heavy metals; Metalloids

2
 1. Introduction

Search results for the term “heavy metals” show extensive use of this term on the internet. Thousands

of articles have been published in scientific journals about different aspects of heavy metals. The term is

generally used as a generic term for metals and metalloids associated with environmental pollution,

toxicity and adverse effects on living organisms including humans. The term is commonly used in the

environmental literature, notably in environmental chemistry, ecotoxicology, environmental medicine

etc. Thousands of scientific publications and other government documents have reported scientific
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

studies and legislations on heavy metals. Some topics dealing with heavy metals include their sources in

the environment, transport and environmental fate, biogeochemical cycling, entry into the food chains

and bioaccumulation in biota, toxicity and adverse effects on living organisms including harmful effects

on human health, and remediation, among many others. Two major environmental chemical disasters of

the 20th century, Minamata disease and Donana mining catastrophe, were associated with the release of

heavy metals into the environment (Ali and Khan 2017).

2. What are metals, heavy metals and metalloids?

A metal is chemically defined as “a substance that conducts electricity, has a metallic luster, is malleable

and ductile, forms cations, and has basic oxides” (Atkins and Jones 1997). What is a “heavy metal”?

Hawkes (1997) defined heavy metals as “the transition and post-transition metals” and hoped that this

definition should serve the needs of most chemists and some others who use the term. The oldest

scientific use of the term “heavy metal”, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, dates back to

Bjerrum’s Inorganic Chemistry 3rd Danish edition in which heavy metals were defined as those metals

with an elemental density above 7 g cm−3 (Bjerrum 1936). Heavy metals are most often defined as

metals having density greater than 5 g cm−3. For example, a highly cited review article in Arabian Journal

of Chemistry defines heavy metals as “Heavy metals are generally considered to be those whose density

3
 exceeds 5 g per cubic centimeter” (Barakat 2011). According to Walker et al. (2012) “For a metal to be

considered heavy, it must have a density relative to water of greater than 5”. However, some studies

have included metals having density less than 5 g cm−3 under the name heavy metals. For example, a

highly cited research article in Chemosphere reporting levels of 10 heavy metals in rice from an E-waste

recycling area in China has included As and Ba under the title heavy metals (Fu et al. 2008). Arsenic is a

metalloid while Ba is an alkaline earth metal of Group 2 of the periodic table and has a density of 3.62 g

cm−3, which is less than 5. A recent article in Journal of Hazardous Materials (Fang et al. 2016) has listed
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

Cs and Sr with heavy metals. Cs and Sr are alkali and alkaline earth metals respectively with respective

elemental densities of 1.873 and 2.64 g cm−3. We personally had listed As with heavy metals in Table 1

titled “Anthropogenic sources of specific heavy metals in the environment” in our highly cited article on

phytoremediation of heavy metals, published in Chemosphere (Ali, Khan, and Sajad 2013). The inclusion

of metalloids with heavy metals is also an issue which has created confusion and requires solution.

Hubner, Astin, and Herbert (2010) point to this fact and remark that “not all ‘heavy metals’ are metals in

the first place”. They refer to the examples of As and Sb, which are usually classified as ‘heavy metals’,

although they are metalloids.

What is a metalloid? Goldsmith (1982) has reviewed the history of the term metalloid. He

argued that by that time there was no agreement on an exact definition of the term metalloid, nor had

there been any agreement about which elements could be identified as metalloids. Goldsmith pointed

out that the elements B, Si, As, Ge, Sb, and Te were mentioned most frequently as metalloids, but Po

and At were sometimes included in the list. Hawkes (2010) explained that Po is a metal and At is a

nonmetal. A relatively recent literature survey by Vernon (2013) revealed that the elements most

frequently identified as metalloids were B, Si, Ge, As, Se, Sb, Te, Po, and At. However, he also

maintained that six elements, namely B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, and Te, are commonly recognized as metalloids.

Vernon proposed a semiquantitative working definition of metalloids as “A metalloid is a chemical

4
 element that, in its standard state, has (a) the electronic band structure of a semiconductor or a

semimetal, (b) an intermediate first ionization potential (say, 750−1,000 kJ/mol), and (c) an intermediate

electronegativity (1.9−2.2, revised Pauling)”. Furthermore, he concluded that Se is better classified as a

nonmetal, and Po as a metal.

3. Terminology used in relation to heavy metals

Different terms are used in relation to heavy metals in environmental, biological and toxicological
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

context. These terms include toxic or hazardous metals, trace metals, trace elements, essential metals,

non-essential metals, trace minerals, micronutrients etc. These terms are often used as alternatives of

heavy metals, knowingly or unknowingly. All these terms have their own specific contextual meanings

and are not the alternatives of the term “heavy metals”. For example, a particular heavy metal may be

toxic, essential or non-essential. In pure elemental forms, most metals are nontoxic because they are

not bioavailable (Duffus 2003). In the environmental literature, the term “heavy metals” has often been

associated with environmental pollution, toxicity and harmful effects on living organisms including

humans. Just as the heaviness of a metal has nothing to do with its physiological or toxicological profile,

the term “heavy metals” itself has nothing to do with its role in (biological) life or its toxicity. Although

many heavy metals are toxic for living organisms under certain conditions, this is not always true for all

heavy metals under all conditions. Hodson (2004) has remarked that “All metals/elements are toxic in

certain forms and in sufficiently high doses”.

Thus, the careless use of terminology has created confusions about the meaning of the term

“heavy metals”. Regarding the careless use of terminology in the scientific literature, Duffus (2003) has

remarked that “Careless and imprecise use of terminology is not conducive to clarity of thought; it

certainly cannot promote clear thought in the minds of students, and should not be found in our

textbooks”. He further remarked that “All of us who have been active in the field of metal toxicology

5
 have probably been guilty of poor use of terminology in the past. Now it is time to apply stricter

standards to our writing and teaching, to ensure that we provide a solid foundation for future progress”.

4. Debate on scientific use of the term “heavy metals”

One of the first papers to suggest replacement of the term “heavy metals” was published by Nieboer

and Richardson (1980). They proposed the replacement of the term “heavy metals” by a classification

which separates metal ions into class A (O-seeking), class B (N/S seeking) and borderline (or
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

intermediate). The debate on scientific use of the term “heavy metals” was triggered at the dawn of the

21st century by the publication of an article in Pure and Applied Chemistry as an IUPAC Technical Report

by John H. Duffus of The Edinburgh Centre for Toxicology, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom (Duffus

2002). In this article, he called the term as both meaningless and misleading and suggested abandoning

the use of the term. He has pointed out that a survey of usage by April 2001, has found different

definitions of the term “heavy metal”. These definitions have been listed in Table 2 of the Duffus (2002)

article and included those in terms of density (specific gravity), in terms of atomic weight (relative

atomic mass), in terms of atomic number, those based on other chemical properties, those without a

clear basis other than toxicity and nonchemical definitions used before 1936. Duffus explained that such

a diversity of definitions given by different authors has made the term practically meaningless. He

pointed out the lack of relationship between density and any of the other physicochemical concepts

used for defining “heavy metals” and their toxicity or ecotoxicity. He further explained the lack of

definition of the term “heavy metal” by any authoritative body like IUPAC. Duffus suggested abandoning

metal classification using terms without sound terminological or scientific basis such as the term “heavy

metals”. He highlighted the need for a metal classification tightly based on their chemical properties. He

anticipated the usefulness of such a classification in interpreting the biochemical basis of metal toxicity

and in providing a rational basis for predicting the toxicity of different metal species. The publication of

6
 Duffus (2002) was appreciated by Hodson (2004), Appenroth (2010) and Hubner, Astin, and Herbert

(2010).

5. Publications after Duffus (2002)

The pioneering publication highlighting the improper and inconsistent use of the term “heavy metals”

was followed by few publications in the relevant scientific journals, mostly endorsing Duffus’

recommendations for abandoning the use of the term. To our knowledge, the first such responsive
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

article was an invited paper in Environmental Pollution by Hodson (2004). In this article, agreeing with

Duffus, he also communicated that the term “heavy metals” is a loose and poorly defined term which is

usually used to mean environmentally ‘‘bad’’ metals. He explained that the term is majorly viewed as

synonymous with pollution and toxicity and therefore heavy metals are viewed as bogey men,

considered responsible for all types of evils in the environment.

Another publication regarding the scientific use of the term was Chapman (2007). He called the

term “heavy metals” as imprecise and incorrect and showed his concern on the general usage of the

term in scientific publications. Chapman highlighted the recommendation from International Union of

Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and others for a new classification of metals based on the periodic

table. For the time being, he suggested replacement of the term “heavy metals” by simply “metals” (or

“metalloids”, in the case of B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po, At, and Se). Here note the mention of Po, At and Se

as metalloids, although this is not the only such mention in the scientific literature. Other authors and

some fundamental chemistry textbooks list Po with metals while At and Se with nonmetals. Chapman

called for a need for authors and editors to thoroughly edit out the term “heavy” metals in science.

Nikinmaa and Schlenk (2010) communicated in an editorial of Aquatic Toxicology that they have

received manuscripts which use the term “heavy metal” for both low-density and high-density metals

and metals in vastly different positions in the periodic table so that all the metals are called heavy

7
 except Na, K, Mg and Ca. They explained that in such situation where the term is used for both low-

density and high-density metals, using heavy metal instead of metal does not add to the content of

information. They suggested that it is much more informative to use only metal and whenever needed,

use the name of the metal. They offered a suggestion to all the authors of Aquatic Toxicology to quit the

use of the term “heavy metal”.

A relatively more clear categorization of elements as heavy metals, in the context of Plant or Life

Sciences, was suggested by Appenroth (2010). He was of the view that the term is so widely used in
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

Plant Sciences that it is hardly possible to eliminate it. He realized the need for defining the term in a

clearer way instead of eliminating it and suggested that the periodic table of elements should be the

basis for such a definition. Classification of metals according to their position in the periodic table makes

sense. Concerning the use of density as a criterion for defining heavy metals, he pointed out the lack of

any correlation between the density of a metal and its physiological or toxicological effects. Appenroth

pointed out that heavy metals are not toxic per se, it is the exposure dose, which makes them toxic. He

referred to the old wisdom (sola dosis facit venenum) i.e., it is the dose of a chemical that determines its

effect in living systems. He showed his concern over the density-based definition of heavy metals and

stated that such definition has made the term ambiguous in Plant (Life) Sciences remarking that “plants

do not have the ability to detect the density of a metal”. Appenroth suggested to define the term “heavy

metals”. However, he did not define the term according to certain criteria but instead included certain

groups of elements of the periodic table as heavy metals. He included the following three sub-groups of

elements as heavy metals:

(a) All transition elements

(b) Rare earth elements, subdivided in the series of lanthanides and the series of actinides

(c) A heterogenous group of elements including Al, Ga, Ge, As, In, Sn, Sb, Te, Ta, Pb, Bi and Po

8
 He called the third sub-group i.e., (c) above, as ‘‘Pb-group elements’’ with the justification that Pb is the

most investigated heavy metal in toxicology and therefore might represent this third sub-group of heavy

metals. His categorization of heavy metals in the periodic table is shown in Figure 1.

Madrid (2010) also expressed concern over the definition of “heavy metals” based on density.

He argues that defining heavy metals on the basis of density results in the inclusion of elements that

cannot be considered as pollutants in any case, e.g. Mn or Fe. He also points out the different density

thresholds set by different authors for defining heavy metals and remarks that “different density limits
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

according to different authors would mean that some elements would be excluded or included”. He

discusses some options such as ‘trace’ and ‘potentially toxic’ but also considers their limitations. He also

suggests ‘trace metals’ and ‘soft acid metal ions’ as reasonably good alternatives of the term “heavy

metals” but again understands them as being certainly not perfect. In summary, he recommends listing

all the elements involved in a given study as the best way for their description.

Hubner, Astin, and Herbert (2010) have also seriously addressed the issue of the use of the term

“heavy metals”. As their title indicates, they have focused on solution to the problem in addition to a

best description of the issue. These authors referred to the list of 40 different definitions of the term

“heavy metal” given in Duffus (2002) article. They explained that majority of these definitions are based

on various chemical and physical properties of the elements particularly on density and relative atomic

mass. They also highlighted the wide ranges of densities (3.5–7 g cm−3) and relative atomic mass (23–40)

as threshold levels in these definitions. They explained that such diversity in definitions has resulted in

different number of elements considered to be ‘heavy metals’ in different studies. Hubner et al.,

conducted a literature survey using the two databases, Web of Knowledge and Scopus, to find the

trends in the use of the term ‘heavy metal’ in topics and titles of publications. They found that such use

has increased at an exponential rate since 1970. They also noted that the publication of the IUPAC

9
 technical report in 2002 has no significant impact on the use of the term in either of the databases. Their

results showed that the use of the term is actually increasing rather than declining and the trend in the

use remains increasing in both relative and absolute numbers. They reported that based on 2009 data,

the ten most common sources of the term ‘heavy metal’ in the publications’ titles included some of the

most renowned environmental journals with a considerable impact, such as Journal of Hazardous

Materials, Chemosphere and Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. The authors argued that the term

seems to have been ‘vernacularised’ in science and therefore has proven to be very resilient. Hubner et
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

al., called continuing use of the term in environmental sciences as unscientific and presented four

options as possible solutions to the problem. These options are summarized in Table 1.

Another publication addressing this dilemma was by Bhat and Khan (2011). These authors also

communicated that the term “heavy metals” is unsatisfactory because it misrepresents a large and

diverse group of elements. They proposed the term Biologically Labile Elements (BLEs) or simply Bio-

labile Elements.

6. Defense of the term “heavy metals” by Graeme E Batley

In response to the campaign for abolition of the term “heavy metals”, Graeme E Batley, a seasoned

researcher of the environmental chemistry and ecotoxicology of heavy metals, presented a defense of

the term in a very peaceful and logical way (Batley 2012). He was confident about the use of the term

and believed that it adequately discriminates between the metals of environmental concern and those

other, notionally ‘‘light’’ metals like Na, K, Mg, and Ca, which are all major ion constituents of natural

waters, soils, and sediments and are of minor environmental interest. He explained that the accepted

classification of heavy metals is mostly restricted to the transition metals, because they are encountered

as anthropogenic contaminants and are potential toxicants and therefore are of environmental concern,

although many of them are definitely essential for life. He added that a logical extension in the class of

10
 heavy metals is to include the lanthanide and actinide elements. However, these are rare earth

elements and are not routinely included in studies of heavy metals. Batley personally did not suggest a

definition of heavy metals, instead he explained his viewpoint about the classification of heavy metals.

He explained that from the perspective of environmental chemistry and ecotoxicology, he would agree

with any definition of heavy metals that includes the elements V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Mo, Ag, Cd,

Au, Hg, Sn, and Pb. It seems that, during his career in the field since early 1970s, he has noted these

elements as the common heavy metals of environmental concern. Finally, Batley would consider the
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

following 35 elements in the periodic table as heavy metals:

(i) Transition metals from Sc to Zn, Y to Cd, and La to Hg

(ii) The metals in Groups IIIA and IVA, namely Ga, In, Sn, Tl, and Pb

Regarding the response of the environmental science community about the campaign for abolition of

the term “heavy metals”, Batley remarked that “Apart from our editor, the objections from within the

environmental science community amount to less than a whimper, because most either feel

comfortable with the term, or have no strong opinions one way or the other”. In conclusion, Batley

explained that he firmly believes in ‘‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’’. Until there is a better definition of the

term that covers the group of metals commonly posing environmental concerns, he would not be

convinced to abandon the prefix ‘‘heavy’’ as it is a well understood descriptor of these metals.

7. Response to Dr. Graeme Batley defense of the term “heavy metals”

The publication of Dr. Graeme Batley article in Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management

presenting a defense for the term “heavy metals” was followed by a response from Chapman in the

same issue of the journal (Chapman 2012b). Chapman explained that scientists are humans, they are not

always right, and as scientists they should constantly question and encourage questioning (Chapman

2012a).

11
 Very recently, Pourret and Bollinger (2018) have suggested removal of the term “heavy metals”

and its replacement with alternatives such as “potentially toxic metal(s)/element(s)” or “trace

metal(s)/element(s)”. However, it is to be noted that “potentially toxic metal(s)/element(s)” is not a

definitive term and almost any metal/element may be potentially toxic depending on dose and duration

of exposure. Likewise, “trace metal(s)/element(s)” can have two meanings, one with respect to their

quantity required in the body and the other with respect to their abundance in the earth’s

crust/environment.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

Since 2012, with the exception of the above-mentioned article, there is silence in the debate on

use of the term “heavy metals” and a comprehensive definition is still awaited. Hodson (2004), a

supporter of Duffus call for stopping the use of the term, has communicated that many apologists of the

term “heavy metals” from the environmental science community defend their use of the term with such

statement ‘‘I know it is a terrible term but everyone knows what it means and there aren’t any

alternatives’’. So, we suggest that instead of searching for alternatives of the term, it is better to define

the term in a comprehensive way and use this new definition for deciding which elements in the

periodic table would be included as heavy metals.

8. A comprehensive definition of the term “heavy metals”—Final solution to the controversy

As stated by Hodson (2004), the term is popular in the environmental literature. According to Hubner,

Astin, and Herbert (2010), the use of the term in topics and titles of publications is still widespread and

increasing. These authors have communicated the argument that a proposed replacement of the term

may seem non-intuitive to environmental scientists. Therefore, a comprehensive and more scientific

definition of the term “heavy metals” is needed in order to clearly identify the elements to be

categorized as heavy metals. Such a definition should be based on the periodic table of elements but it

should also preserve the traditional taste of heaviness of the term heavy metals.

12
 In the first place, heavy metals must be metals. Thus elements, which are metals can be

categorized as heavy metals; metalloids such as As and the nonmetal Se cannot be categorized as heavy

metals. The heaviness of an element is based on the mass of its atoms and their arrangement/packing in

the available space at a given temperature. The former property of elements is expressed in terms of

their atomic mass and the later in terms of their density. The atomic mass of an element is ultimately

determined by the number of nucleons in its nucleus. Since, the number of neutrons in the nucleus of an

element may be less than (only for protium, 1H), equal to or greater than the number of protons in it,
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

therefore, the arrangement of elements in the periodic table is based on the number of protons in the

nucleus of an element, called the atomic number (Z). Thus, to categorize heavy metals more

scientifically and at the same time retaining the taste of heaviness in their definition, we must consider

both atomic number and elemental density. Since elements are placed in the periodic table according to

their atomic number, incorporation of atomic number as a classification criterion in the definition of

heavy metals will provide a systematic way of locating them in the periodic table. In summary, we

suggest that such a definition should be based on both atomic number and elemental density of metals.

Our proposed definition of heavy metals is as follows:

“Heavy metals are naturally occurring metals having atomic number greater than 20 and an elemental

density greater than 5 g cm−3”.

This definition has three parts:

(i) Heavy metals must be naturally occurring metals

(ii) Their atomic number must be greater than 20

(iii) Their density must be greater than 5 g cm−3

13
 Criteria items (ii) and (iii) above have previously been used, separately, for defining heavy metals; we

have only assembled them into a single definition and appended criterion (i) to their combination in

order to have a more comprehensive definition. The inclusion of criterion (i) in the definition of heavy

metals is very important because As and Se, two elements other than metals, are most often discussed

under the umbrella of heavy metals in the environmental literature. As discussed by Duffus (2003), the

confusion arising from inclusion of As with metals is very common in the relevant literature. A metalloid

or semimetal is defined as “an element that has the physical appearance and properties of a metal but
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

behaves chemically like a non-metal” (Atkins and Jones 1997). Duffus (2003) has argued that since

toxicological properties of elements are determined by their chemical properties, therefore metalloids

should not be considered as a subset of metals but rather as a subset of nonmetals. Madrid (2010) also

explained that using “metals” for a group of elements including As or Se is, at least, incorrect. Batley

(2012) is also of the view that As and Se should not be included as heavy metals. A screening of the

periodic table according to our proposed new definition yields a total of 51 elements to be classified as

heavy metals. For such screening, elemental densities were taken from the interactive periodic table of

Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC 2017). Figure 2 shows a plot of elemental density versus atomic

number. A schematic of such screening and a view of the periodic table depicting heavy metals are

shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively.

As shown in Figure 4, out of the 51 elements to be called heavy metals, 7 are from p-Block, 25

from d-Block, 19 from f-Block while no element from s-Block, the notionally light metals. The two main

group metals barium (Ba) and radium (Ra) were not included in heavy metals because their densities are

3.62 and 5 g cm−3 respectively, which are less than the threshold density of greater than 5 g cm−3 set in

the new proposed definition. Similarly, the three transition metals scandium (Sc), titanium (Ti) and

yttrium (Y) were also not included because of the same reason; their densities are 2.99, 4.506 and 4.47 g

cm−3 respectively. The transition metals technetium (Tc) and promethium (Pm) could not be included as

14
 heavy metals because both of them do not meet the criterion of “naturally occurring metals” as the first

criterion in the new definition. Actually, only 90 of the first 92 elements occur naturally; Tc and Pm do

not occur naturally because all their isotopes are radioactive and have very short half-lives (McMurry

and Fay 2012). The main group metal Al was not included because its atomic number (13) is less than 20

and its density (2.7 g cm−3) is less than the threshold density. The metalloid As and the nonmetal Se

could not be included in heavy metals because they are not metals at all; the density of Se (4.809 g cm−3)

is also less than the threshold density. (Sorry As and Se! We feel sorry for missing you but you by your
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

very nature were not metals to be grouped with heavy metals. Also sorry Al! But you by your nature

were neither high enough on the ladder of atomic numbers nor heavy enough to be grouped with heavy

metals; however, not being heavy is fortunate for you because heaviness would prevent you from flying

in the air. Nevertheless, it does not mean that you all have no rich environmental profile; we will

continue to research and explore your environmental chemistry and ecotoxicology). Thus, it is

concluded that “heavy metals” must be heavy and metals.

9. Commentary on the newly defined classification of heavy metals

Although many people will still raise hands with Duffus, our efforts in suggesting the new definition and

consequent categorization of heavy metals may improve the picture of the term. Another contribution

of this effort will be to inform our readers and future authors to take care in the use of terminology

related to heavy metals. Here we would like to convey our message that for an element to be grouped

with heavy metals, it is not necessary to be essential or non-essential for living organisms, to be toxic, to

have reputation as an environmental pollutant or to be prevalent in the environmental literature. Just as

the light metal Al, the metalloid As and the nonmetal Se could not be included in the class of heavy

metals despite their environmental concerns, in the same way there may be heavy metals not notorious

for toxicity and with no environmental concerns. Thus, a heavy metal is a heavy metal, essential or non-

15
 essential for biological life, notorious for toxicity or not, have reputation as environmental pollutant or

not.

Many people may not be aware of the environmental importance for Al. Although not a heavy

metal, Al has a considerable environmental importance. Walker et al. (2012) have remarked that “some

metals are not heavy but can act as important environmental pollutants”. They have given the example

of Al and have reported that it is an extremely important pollutant in acidified lakes, where its solubility

makes it toxic to fauna especially to fish gills. It has also been implicated in Alzheimer’s disease in
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

humans. Exogenous Al exposure is considered among the exogenous risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease

(Kepp (2012) and references 44-47 therein). Another very important aspect of some heavy metals is

their essentiality for biological life. Although some heavy metals such as Cd, Hg and Pb are thoroughly

regarded as totally nonessential for living organisms, the non-essentiality of Cd has been questioned in

recent years. Lane et al. (2005) has reported a carbonic anhydrase (an enzyme involved in the

acquisition of inorganic C for photosynthesis) containing Cd (CDCA1) from the marine diatom

Thalassiosira weissflogii, which was claimed to be the first native enzyme discovered so far to contain

Cd. This discovery has provided a long-awaited explanation for the nutrient-like behavior of Cd in the

oceans. So, as progress in research continues, more and more information is expected to come

regarding the role of heavy metals in biological systems. However, here we will not go much in this topic

because this is an area of bioinorganic chemistry and environmental bioinorganic chemistry.

10. Conclusions and Recommendations

The aim of publication on the “heavy metals” controversy is not to have a tour of the subject for our

readers and finally leave them in a closed street with no take-home message. We agree with both Batley

and Chapman. We agree with Batley in that we should present a defense of the term in order to keep it

live in the literature and with Chapman in that we should not persist on our ‘sin of omission’ i.e., we

16
 should have a more comprehensive definition of the term, which should be consistently used thereafter.

The term has occupied space permanently not only in our memories but also in computer memories.

We are of the opinion not to abandon the term, not at least currently (Sorry Duffus! But it is true that

the term cannot be sacrificed without having a more meaningful alternative in hands). We have based

our definition on the periodic table of elements, the gold standard in chemistry. Although the term is

complained about for being imprecise, poorly defined and inconsistently used in the scientific literature

but is widely accepted and therefore indispensable. The new proposed definition of the term “heavy
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

metals” is a step forward for a sound scientific definition of the term. Finally, it is once again explained

that the term “heavy metals” is a concept in its own place and therefore should not be necessarily

associated with environmental pollution, toxicity or adverse effects on living organisms.

It is brought into the notice of the editors of relevant scientific journals (Table 2 of Ali and Khan

(2017)) and other environmental journals as well as Pure and Applied Chemistry to note the controversy

associated with the use of the term “heavy metals”. They may advise their prospective authors to use

either the definition suggested in this paper or any other sensible definition and not to consider

elements other than heavy metals (especially the light metals such as Al, the metalloid As or the

nonmetal Se) as heavy metals.

Acknowledgements

The credit for motivation of this publication goes to Duffus, who published the pioneering and

fundamental article in Pure and Applied Chemistry in 2002 and brought the issue into the notice of the

scientific community. All those who contributed to the growth and resolution of the controversy on the

term “heavy metals” are gratefully acknowledged.

17
 References

Ali, H., and E. Khan. 2017. "Environmental Chemistry in the Twenty-First Century." Environmental

Chemistry Letters 15 (2): 329-346. doi: 10.1007/s10311-016-0601-3.

Ali, H., E. Khan, and M. A. Sajad. 2013. "Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals—Concepts and Applications."

Chemosphere 91 (7): 869-881. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.01.075.

Appenroth, K.-J. 2010. "What Are “Heavy Metals” in Plant Sciences?" Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 32

(4): 615-619. doi: 10.1007/s11738-009-0455-4.

Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

Atkins, P., and L. Jones. 1997. Chemistry—Molecules, Matter and Change. 3rd ed. New York: W. H.

Freeman.

Barakat, M. A. 2011. "New Trends in Removing Heavy Metals from Industrial Wastewater." Arabian

Journal of Chemistry 4 (4): 361-377. doi: 10.1016/j.arabjc.2010.07.019.

Batley, G. E. 2012. "“Heavy Metal”—a Useful Term." Integrated Environmental Assessment and

Management 8 (2): 215. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1290.

Bhat, U. N., and A. B. Khan. 2011. "Heavy Metals: An Ambiguous Category of Inorganic Contaminants,

Nutrients and Toxins." Research Journal of Environmental Sciences 5 (8): 682-690. doi:

10.3923/rjes.2011.682.690.

Bjerrum, N. 1936. Bjerrum’s Inorganic Chemistry. 3rd Danish ed. London: Heinemann.

Chapman, P. M. 2007. "Heavy Metal—Music, Not Science." Environmental Science & Technology 41

(12): 6C. doi: 10.1021/es072552o.

Chapman, P. M. 2012a. "Crossing the Scientific Line: Sins of Omission and Commission." Marine

Pollution Bulletin 64: 457–458. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.12.003.

Chapman, P. M. 2012b. "“Heavy Metal”—Cacophony, Not Symphony." Integrated Environmental

Assessment and Management 8 (2): 216. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1289.

18
 Duffus, J. H. 2002. ""Heavy Metals"—a Meaningless Term? (Iupac Technical Report)." Pure and Applied

Chemistry 74 (5): 793-807. doi: 10.1351/pac200274050793.

Duffus, J. H. 2003. "Toxicology of Metals—Science Confused by Poor Use of Terminology." Archives of

Environmental Health: An International Journal 58 (5): 263-266. doi: 10.3200/AEOH.58.5.263-

266.

Fang, H., L. Huang, J. Wang, G. He, and D. Reible. 2016. "Environmental Assessment of Heavy Metal

Transport and Transformation in the Hangzhou Bay, China." Journal of Hazardous Materials
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

302: 447-457. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.09.060.

Fu, J., Q. Zhou, J. Liu, W. Liu, T. Wang, Q. Zhang, and G. Jiang. 2008. "High Levels of Heavy Metals in Rice

(Oryza Sativa L.) from a Typical E-Waste Recycling Area in Southeast China and Its Potential Risk

to Human Health." Chemosphere 71 (7): 1269-1275. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.11.065.

Goldsmith, R. H. 1982. "Metalloids." Journal of Chemical Education 59 (6): 526-527. doi:

10.1021/ed059p526.

Hawkes, S. J. 1997. "What Is a “Heavy Metal”?" Journal of Chemical Education 74 (11): 1374. doi:

10.1021/ed074p1374.

Hawkes, S. J. 2010. "Polonium and Astatine Are Not Semimetals." Journal of Chemical Education 87 (8):

782. doi: 10.1021/ed100308w.

Hodson, M. E. 2004. "Heavy Metals—Geochemical Bogey Men?" Environmental Pollution 129 (3): 341-

343. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2003.11.003.

Hubner, R., K. B. Astin, and R. J. H. Herbert. 2010. "'Heavy Metal'—Time to Move on from Semantics to

Pragmatics?" Journal of Environmental Monitoring 12 (8): 1511-1514. doi:

10.1039/C0EM00056F.

Kepp, K. P. 2012. "Bioinorganic Chemistry of Alzheimer’s Disease." Chemical Reviews 112 (10): 5193-

5239. doi: 10.1021/cr300009x.

19
 Lane, T. W., M. A. Saito, G. N. George, I. J. Pickering, R. C. Prince, and F. M. M. Morel. 2005.

"Biochemistry: A Cadmium Enzyme from a Marine Diatom." Nature 435 (7038): 42. doi:

10.1038/435042a.

Madrid, L. 2010. "“Heavy Metals”: Reminding a Long-Standing and Sometimes Forgotten Controversy."

Geoderma 155 (1-2): 128-129. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.11.031.

McMurry, J. E., and R. C. Fay. 2012. Chemistry. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Nieboer, E., and D. H. S. Richardson. 1980. "The Replacement of the Nondescript Term ‘Heavy Metals’ by
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

a Biologically and Chemically Significant Classification of Metal Ions." Environmental Pollution

Series B, Chemical and Physical 1 (1): 3-26. doi: 10.1016/0143-148X(80)90017-8.

Nikinmaa, M., and D. Schlenk. 2010. "Uses of Phrases." Aquatic Toxicology 97 (1): 1–2. doi:

10.1016/j.aquatox.2010.02.015.

Pourret, O., and J.-C. Bollinger. 2018. "“Heavy Metal” - What to Do Now: To Use or Not to Use?" Science

of The Total Environment 610-611 (Supplement C): 419-420. doi:

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.043.

Royal Society of Chemistry. 2017. "Periodic Table". http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/ Accessed

October 20, 2017

Vernon, R. E. 2013. "Which Elements Are Metalloids?" Journal of Chemical Education 90 (12): 1703-

1707. doi: 10.1021/ed3008457.

Walker, C. H., R. M. Sibly, S. P. Hopkin, and D. B. Peakall. 2012. Principles of Ecotoxicology. 4th ed. Boca

Raton: CRC Press.

20
 Figure Captions
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

Figure 1: Periodic Table of Elements. Metals and some metalloids included in the new term ‘‘heavy
metals’’ are framed. For the definition of ‘‘heavy metals’’ (1) the block of the transition elements
(middle) (2) the rare earth elements (lanthanide series, actinide series at the bottom) and (3) the lead-
group elements on the right-hand side of the table form the three constituting subgroups (Appenroth
(2010), used with permission of Springer)

21
 25

20
Density (g cm−3)

15

10

0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97
Atomic Number (Z)
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

Figure 2: Plot of elemental density versus atomic number. The orange line is a demarcation line at a
density of 5 g cm−3. Elemental densities are taken from the interactive periodic table of Royal Society of
Chemistry (RSC 2017).

22
 Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

23
 Figure 3: Schematic showing scrutiny of the elements in the periodic table for heavy metals according to
the newly proposed definition

Periodic Table of Elements

1 18
1 2
1
H 2
Heavy Metals 13 14 15 16 17 He
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 Metalloids
Li Be B C N O F Ne
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
3
Na Mg 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Al Si P S Cl Ar
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
4
K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Ar
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
5
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017

Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe
55 56 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86
6 *
Cs Ba Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn
87 88 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111
7 **
Fr Ra Rf Db Sg Bh Hs Mt Ds Rg

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
*Lanthanides
La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103
**Actinides
Ac Th Pa U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm Md No Lr

Figure 4: Periodic Table of Elements showing heavy metals (shaded in olive green) and metalloids

(shaded in orange)

24
 Table 1: Options with remarks presented by Hubner et al. (2010) for the solution of the long-standing
problem of the imprecise usage of the term “heavy metals” in scientific literature
Option No. Option
Option 1 Replacement of the term ‘heavy metals’
with a reasonable and scientifically
defendable term.
Option 2 Avoiding the problem by not using this
umbrella term and referring simply to
metals or elements.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:49 08 December 2017
Option 3 Formulating one single scientific
definition.
Option 4 Calling the ten elements most
commonly considered as heavy metals,
Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Cd, Sn, Hg, Pb as
‘heavy metals’, all other elements not.
Remarks
This approach has been tried, and failed.
This is a reasonable approach—not precise,
but at least accurate—and is probably the
only approach that ultimately might
successfully suppress the term ‘heavy
metals’.
This would be an ideal approach, but
unlikely to be adopted. A general
agreement about a single atomic mass,
atomic number, density or another similar
criterion is not probable soon.
It is basic and to a certain degree arbitrary,
but at least uniform and based on a mutual
understanding.
25