Naming superheavy elements
Turn to the far right of the periodic table and you meet elements no one on Earth has ever seen occur naturally — atoms with more than 100 protons, made for a few milliseconds inside a particle accelerator before they decay away. The instant a lab claims a new one, the world needs a name for it in print, but IUPAC's real naming committee can take years to settle a permanent one, sometimes amid genuine priority disputes between rival labs. Chemistry solved this with a beautifully mechanical trick: read the atomic number's digits, look up a fixed root for each digit, string the roots together, and add "-ium". Anyone, anywhere, can build or decode the name from the number alone, no committee required. This article sets out that digit-to-root rule, shows it worked forward and backward, and flags the traps ISC examiners like to set around it.
IUPAC builds a temporary, unambiguous name and three-letter symbol for any element with atomic number greater than 100 by translating each digit of the atomic number into a fixed root (0 = nil, 1 = un, 2 = bi, 3 = tri, 4 = quad, 5 = pent, 6 = hex, 7 = sept, 8 = oct, 9 = enn), concatenating those roots in digit order, and appending "-ium".
The core idea
Every atomic number beyond 100 is a superheavy element, and every one of them can be named the same mechanical way, without waiting for IUPAC's naming committee to rule on a permanent, honorific name. The system rests on two small building blocks.
A fixed root for every digit. IUPAC assigns each of the ten digits, 0 through 9, one short root:
| Digit | Root | Digit | Root |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | nil | 5 | pent |
| 1 | un | 6 | hex |
| 2 | bi | 7 | sept |
| 3 | tri | 8 | oct |
| 4 | quad | 9 | enn |
These ten roots never change and must simply be memorised — they are the entire vocabulary of the scheme.
Reading the atomic number as separate digits. Any three-digit atomic number (all superheavy elements known so far run from 101 to 118, and the scheme extends to any larger synthesised later) can be split into its hundreds, tens and units digits:
where: is the hundreds digit, is the tens digit, and is the units digit of the atomic number, each an integer from 0 to 9 (with for ). The naming rule takes each of , , in that left-to-right order, replaces it with its root from the table, concatenates the three roots, and appends "-ium" once at the very end — never after each individual root. The symbol is built the same way but shorter: take just the first letter of each of the three roots used and combine them into a three-letter symbol. So element 118 has digits , giving roots un, un, oct, name ununoctium, symbol Uuo. This systematic name is a placeholder only — 118's ratified permanent name is oganesson (Og) — but constructing un-un-oct from 1-1-8 is exactly the mechanical skill being tested.
Why it works
There is no formula to derive here — the rule is a labelling convention, not a physical law — but the reasoning behind it is worth stating plainly, because ISC examiners test the purpose as often as the mechanics. New superheavy elements are made one or a few atoms at a time in heavy-ion accelerators, and many decay within milliseconds. Confirming a discovery, and deciding which of several competing laboratories genuinely made the element first, can take IUPAC's evaluating committees years of scrutiny. Meanwhile, journals, textbooks and researchers still need to refer to element 104 or element 118 unambiguously in print. A name generated purely from the atomic number solves this: it needs no committee, cannot be disputed, and any chemist anywhere can construct or decode it from the ten roots alone. Once a discovery is verified and priority is settled, the discovering team is invited to propose a permanent name — often honouring a place, a scientist or a laboratory (rutherfordium for Ernest Rutherford, copernicium for Copernicus, moscovium for Moscow). That permanent name then replaces the systematic one everywhere, including on the periodic table itself. All of elements 101–118 now carry permanent names, yet the systematic rule stays firmly on the syllabus: it is a clean, self-contained algorithm, it demonstrates how a naming system can be built from first principles rather than convention, and it applies without modification to any element beyond 118 that is synthesised in the future.
Worked example
Question. Construct the IUPAC systematic name and three-letter symbol for the element with atomic number 115. Then, decode the systematic name "ununseptium" back into its atomic number and symbol.
Step 1. Split into digits using : here , , , so the digits in order are 1, 1, 5.
Step 2. Look up each digit's root: un, un, pent.
Step 3. Concatenate the roots in digit order and append "-ium" once: un + un + pent + ium = ununpentium. The symbol takes the first letter of each root used: u, u, p Uup. (Element 115's confirmed permanent name is moscovium, symbol Mc.)
Step 4. Now decode "ununseptium" the reverse way: break it into roots by matching the root list — un + un + sept + "ium". Translate each root back to a digit: un , un , sept . Concatenating the digits in order gives , and the symbol is the first letters u, u, s Uus.
Answer: element 115 is systematically ununpentium, symbol Uup; and the name "ununseptium" decodes to , symbol Uus. (Element 117's confirmed permanent name is tennessine, Ts.)
Competitive stretch
A question may give only the symbol, say "Uuh", and ask for the atomic number. Match each letter back to the root it starts: U un (1), u un (1), h hex (6, the only listed root starting with h) — so (permanent name livermorium, Lv). Watch for letters that could start more than one root in principle; IUPAC's actual ten-root list happens to give each digit a unique starting letter, which is exactly why the three-letter symbol is always decodable without ambiguity.
Common traps
- Reading the digits, or the roots, out of order — the concatenation always follows the atomic number left to right, most significant digit first.
- Confusing the temporary systematic name/symbol with the eventual permanent IUPAC name; a question may ask specifically for one or the other.
- Mixing up similar-sounding roots, especially "quad" (4) with "pent" (5), or "sept" (7) with "hex" (6) — these are memorised facts, not derivable from anything.
- Appending "-ium" after every root instead of once, at the very end of the full concatenated string.
Ask the tutor: if you want quick drills converting between atomic numbers and systematic element names and symbols, ask the AI tutor to quiz you both ways.
Why does the digit 6 use the root hex and not sex, given the usual Latin numeral
IUPAC deliberately chose "hex" over the more historically common Latin "sex" for six, to avoid the awkward and confusable combinations that would arise when "sex" merges with neighbouring roots in a concatenated name. The ten roots in the official list are a fixed, standardised set chosen for exactly this kind of clarity, so hex for 6 (and nil for 0, rather than a Latin-derived alternative) simply has to be memorised as given, not re-derived from Latin roots you may know from elsewhere.
Do I need to know the permanent names of elements 101 to 118 as well as the systematic rule
For this topic, the examiner mainly wants the systematic construction and decoding rule itself — building or reading a name like ununoctium from a digit sequence. Knowing that a permanent name eventually replaces the systematic one, and being able to name one or two well-known examples such as rutherfordium (104) or oganesson (118), is useful context, but memorising all eighteen permanent names is not the point of the syllabus item; the mechanical rule is.
Why do we even need a three-letter symbol when the normal periodic table uses one or two letters
Ordinary element symbols use one or two letters because there are fewer than 120 confirmed elements and that is enough to keep every symbol unique. The systematic scheme instead builds its symbol mechanically from three digit-roots, so it always comes out three letters long regardless of how many elements exist — the length is a side effect of the construction method, not a deliberate choice to distinguish it visually, though in practice it does make temporary symbols easy to recognise at a glance.