Give comparative study of all the different types of periodic tables along with merits and demerits?

Answers (1)

First systemization attempts
The discovery of the elements mapped to significant periodic table development dates (pre-, per- and post-)

In 1789, Antoine Lavoisier published a list of 33 chemical elements, grouping them into gases, metals, nonmetals, and earths.[42] Chemists spent the following century searching for a more precise classification scheme. In 1829, Johann Wolfgang Döbereiner observed that many of the elements could be grouped into triads based on their chemical properties. Lithium, sodium, and potassium, for example, were grouped together in a triad as soft, reactive metals. Döbereiner also observed that, when arranged by atomic weight, the second member of each triad was roughly the average of the first and the third;[43] this became known as the Law of Triads.[44] German chemist Leopold Gmelin worked with this system, and by 1843 he had identified ten triads, three groups of four, and one group of five. Jean-Baptiste Dumas published work in 1857 describing relationships between various groups of metals. Although various chemists were able to identify relationships between small groups of elements, they had yet to build one scheme that encompassed them all.[43]

In 1858, German chemist August Kekulé observed that carbon often has four other atoms bonded to it. Methane, for example, has one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. This concept eventually became known as valency; different elements bond with different numbers of atoms.[45]

In 1862, Alexandre-Emile Béguyer de Chancourtois, a French geologist, published an early form of periodic table, which he called the telluric helix or screw. He was the first person to notice the periodicity of the elements. With the elements arranged in a spiral on a cylinder by order of increasing atomic weight, de Chancourtois showed that elements with similar properties seemed to occur at regular intervals. His chart included some ions and compounds in addition to elements. His paper also used geological rather than chemical terms and did not include a diagram; as a result, it received little attention until the work of Dmitri Mendeleev.[46]

In 1864, Julius Lothar Meyer, a German chemist, published a table with 44 elements arranged by valency. The table showed that elements with similar properties often shared the same valency.[47] Concurrently, William Odling (an English chemist) published an arrangement of 57 elements, ordered on the basis of their atomic weights. With some irregularities and gaps, he noticed what appeared to be a periodicity of atomic weights amongst the elements and that this accorded with 'their usually received groupings.' [48] Odling alluded to the idea of a periodic law but did not pursue it.[49] He subsequently proposed (in 1870) a valence-based classification of the elements.[50]
Newlands's periodic table, as presented to the Chemical Society in 1866, and based on the law of octaves

English chemist John Newlands produced a series of papers from 1863 to 1866 noting that when the elements were listed in order of increasing atomic weight, similar physical and chemical properties recurred at intervals of eight; he likened such periodicity to the octaves of music.[51][52] This so termed Law of Octaves, however, was ridiculed by Newlands' contemporaries, and the Chemical Society refused to publish his work.[53] Newlands was nonetheless able to draft a table of the elements and used it to predict the existence of missing elements, such as germanium.[54] The Chemical Society only acknowledged the significance of his discoveries five years after they credited Mendeleev.[55]

In 1867, Gustavus Hinrichs, a Danish born academic chemist based in America, published a spiral periodic system based on atomic spectra and weights, and chemical similarities. His work was regarded as idiosyncratic, ostentatious and labyrinthine and this may have militated against its recognition and acceptance.[56][57]
Mendeleev's table
Dmitri Mendeleev
Mendeleev's 1869 periodic table; note that his arrangement presents the periods vertically, and the groups horizontally

Russian chemistry professor Dmitri Mendeleev and German chemist Julius Lothar Meyer independently published their periodic tables in 1869 and 1870, respectively.[58] Mendeleev's table was his first published version; that of Meyer was an expanded version of his (Meyer's) table of 1864.[59] They both constructed their tables by listing the elements in rows or columns in order of atomic weight and starting a new row or column when the characteristics of the elements began to repeat.[60]

The recognition and acceptance afforded to Mendeleev's table came from two decisions he made. The first was to leave gaps in the table when it seemed that the corresponding element had not yet been discovered.[61] Mendeleev was not the first chemist to do so, but he was the first to be recognized as using the trends in his periodic table to predict the properties of those missing elements, such as gallium and germanium.[62] The second decision was to occasionally ignore the order suggested by the atomic weights and switch adjacent elements, such as tellurium and iodine, to better classify them into chemical families. With the development of theories of atomic structure, it became apparent that Mendeleev had unintentionally listed the elements in order of increasing atomic number or nuclear charge.[63]

The significance of atomic numbers to the organization of the periodic table was not appreciated until the existence and properties of protons and neutrons became understood. Mendeleev's periodic tables used atomic weight instead of atomic number to organize the elements, information determinable to fair precision in his time. Atomic weight worked well enough in most cases to (as noted) give a presentation that was able to predict the properties of missing elements more accurately than any other method then known. Substitution of atomic numbers, once understood, gave a definitive, integer-based sequence for the elements, still used today even as new synthetic elements are being produced and studied.[64]
Further development
Mendeleev's 1871 periodic table with eight groups of elements in columns. Dashes represented elements unknown in 1871.
Eight-column form of periodic table, updated with all elements discovered to 2014

In 1871, Mendeleev published a form of periodic table, with groups of similar elements arranged in columns from I to VIII (as shown). He also gave detailed predictions for the properties of elements he had earlier noted were missing, but should exist.[65] These gaps were subsequently filled as chemists discovered additional naturally occurring elements.[66] It is often stated that the last naturally occurring element to be discovered was francium (referred to by Mendeleev as eka-caesium) in 1939.[67] However, plutonium, produced synthetically in 1940, was identified in trace quantities as a naturally occurring primordial element in 1971,[68] and by 2011 it was known that all the elements up to californium can occur naturally as trace amounts in uranium ores by neutron capture and beta decay.[4]

The popular[69] periodic table layout, also known as the common or standard form (as shown at various other points in this article), is attributable to Horace Groves Deming. In 1923, Deming, an American chemist, published short (Mendeleev style) and medium (18-column) form periodic tables.[70][n 6] Merck and Company prepared a handout form of Deming's 18-column medium table, in 1928, which was widely circulated in American schools. By the 1930s Deming's table was appearing in handbooks and encyclopaedias of chemistry. It was also distributed for many years by the Sargent-Welch Scientific Company.[71][72][73]

With the development of modern quantum mechanical theories of electron configurations within atoms, it became apparent that each period (row) in the table corresponded to the filling of a quantum shell of electrons. Larger atoms have more electron sub-shells, so later tables have required progressively longer periods.[74]
Glenn T. Seaborg who, in 1945, suggested a new periodic table showing the actinides as belonging to a second f-block series

In 1945, Glenn Seaborg, an American scientist, made the suggestion that the actinide elements, like the lanthanides were filling an f sub-level. Before this time the actinides were thought to be forming a fourth d-block row. Seaborg's colleagues advised him not to publish such a radical suggestion as it would most likely ruin his career. As Seaborg considered he did not then have a career to bring into disrepute, he published anyway. Seaborg's suggestion was found to be correct and he subsequently went on to win the 1951 Nobel prize in chemistry for his work in synthesizing actinide elements.[75][76][n 7]

Although minute quantities of some transuranic elements occur naturally,[4] they were all first discovered in laboratories. Their production has expanded the periodic table significantly, the first of these being neptunium, synthesized in 1939.[77] Because many of the transuranic elements are highly unstable and decay quickly, they are challenging to detect and characterize when produced. There have been controversies concerning the acceptance of competing discovery claims for some elements, requiring independent review to determine which party has priority, and hence naming rights. The most recently accepted and named elements are flerovium (element 114) and livermorium (element 116), both named on 31 May 2012.[78] In 2010, a joint Russia–US collaboration at Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russia, claimed to have synthesized six atoms of ununseptium (element 117), making it the most recently claimed discovery.[79]
Alternative structures
Main article: Alternative periodic tables
Theodor Benfey's spiral periodic table

There are many periodic tables with structures other than that of the standard form. Within 100 years of the appearance of Mendeleev's table in 1869 it has been estimated that around 700 different periodic table versions were published.[80] As well as numerous rectangular variations, other periodic table formats have included, for example,[n 8] circular, cubic, cylindrical, edificial (building-like), helical, lemniscate, octagonal prismatic, pyramidal, separated, spherical, spiral, and triangular forms. Such alternatives are often developed to highlight or emphasize chemical or physical properties of the elements that are not as apparent in traditional periodic tables.[80]

A popular[81] alternative structure is that of Theodor Benfey (1960). The elements are arranged in a continuous spiral, with hydrogen at the center and the transition metals, lanthanides, and actinides occupying peninsulas.[82]

Most periodic tables are two-dimensional[4] however three-dimensional tables are known to as far back as at least 1862 (pre-dating Mendeleev's two-dimensional table of 1869). More recent examples include Courtines' Periodic Classification (1925),[83] Wringley's Lamina System (1949),[84] Giguère's Periodic helix (1965)[85][n 9] and Dufour's Periodic Tree (1996).[86] Going one better, Stowe's Physicist's Periodic Table (1989)[87] has been described as being four-dimensional (having three spatial dimensions and one colour dimension).[88]

The various forms of periodic tables can be thought of as lying on a chemistry–physics continuum.[89] Towards the chemistry end of the continuum can be found, as an example, Rayner-Canham's 'unruly'[90] Inorganic Chemist's Periodic Table (2002),[91] which emphasizes trends and patterns, and unusual chemical relationships and properties. Near the physics end of the continuum is Janet's Left-Step Periodic Table (1928). This has a structure which shows a closer connection to the order of electron-shell filling and, by association, quantum mechanics.[92] Somewhere in the middle of the continuum is the ubiquitous common or standard form of periodic table. This is regarded as better expressing empirical trends in physical state, electrical and thermal conductivity, and oxidation numbers, and other properties easily inferred from traditional techniques of the chemical laboratory.[93]
[hide]

v
t
e

Janet left-step periodic table
1s H He
2s Li Be
2p 3s B C N O F Ne Na Mg
3p 4s Al Si P S Cl Ar K Ca
3d 4p 5s Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr Rb Sr
4d 5p 6s Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te  I  Xe Cs Ba
4f 5d 6p 7s La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn Fr Ra
5f 6d 7p 8s Ac Th Pa U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm Md No Lr Rf Db Sg Bh Hs Mt Ds Rg Cn 113 Fl 115 Lv 117 118 119 120
f-block d-block p-block s-block
This form of periodic table is more congruent with the order in which electron shells are filled, as shown in the accompanying sequence in the left margin (read from top to bottom, left to right).
Open questions and controversies
Elements with unknown chemical properties

Although all elements up to ununoctium have been discovered, of the elements above hassium (element 108), only copernicium (element 112) and flerovium (element 114) have known chemical properties. The other elements may behave differently from what would be predicted by extrapolation, due to relativistic effects; for example, flerovium has been predicted to possibly exhibit some noble-gas-like properties, even though it is currently placed in the carbon group.[94] More recent experiments have suggested, however, that flerovium behaves chemically like lead, as expected from its periodic table position.[95]
Further periodic table extensions
Main article: Extended periodic table

It is unclear whether new elements will continue the pattern of the current periodic table as period 8, or require further adaptations or adjustments. Seaborg expected the eighth period to follow the previously established pattern exactly, so that it would include a two-element s-block for elements 119 and 120, a new g-block for the next 18 elements, and 30 additional elements continuing the current f-, d-, and p-blocks.[96] More recently, physicists such as Pekka Pyykkö have theorized that these additional elements do not follow the Madelung rule, which predicts how electron shells are filled and thus affects the appearance of the present periodic table.[97]
Element with the highest possible atomic number

The number of possible elements is not known. A very early suggestion made by Elliot Adams in 1911, and based on the arrangement of elements in each horizontal periodic table row, was that elements of atomic weight greater than 256± (which would equate to between elements 99 and 100 in modern-day terms) did not exist.[98] A higher—more recent—estimate is that the periodic table may end soon after the island of stability,[99] which is expected to center around element 126, as the extension of the periodic and nuclides tables is restricted by proton and neutron drip lines.[100] Other predictions of an end to the periodic table include at element 128 by John Emsley,[4] at element 137 by Richard Feynman,[101] and at element 155 by Albert Khazan.[4][n 10]

Bohr model

The Bohr model exhibits difficulty for atoms with atomic number greater than 137, as any element with an atomic number greater than 137 would require 1s electrons to be traveling faster than c, the speed of light.[102] Hence the non-relativistic Bohr model is inaccurate when applied to such an element.

Relativistic Dirac equation

The relativistic Dirac equation has problems for elements with more than 137 protons. For such elements, the wave function of the Dirac ground state is oscillatory rather than bound, and there is no gap between the positive and negative energy spectra, as in the Klein paradox.[103] More accurate calculations taking into account the effects of the finite size of the nucleus indicate that the binding energy first exceeds the limit for elements with more than 173 protons. For heavier elements, if the innermost orbital (1s) is not filled, the electric field of the nucleus will pull an electron out of the vacuum, resulting in the spontaneous emission of a positron;[104] however, this does not happen if the innermost orbital is filled, so that element 173 is not necessarily the end of the periodic table.[105]
Placement of hydrogen and helium

Hydrogen and helium are often placed in different places than their electron configurations would indicate; hydrogen is usually placed above lithium, in accordance with its electron configuration, but is sometimes placed above fluorine,[106] or even carbon,[106] as it also behaves somewhat similarly to them. Hydrogen is also sometimes placed in its own group, as it does not behave similarly enough to any element to be placed in a group with another.[107] Helium is almost always placed above neon, as they are very similar chemically, although it is occasionally placed above beryllium on account of having a comparable electron shell configuration (helium: 1s2; beryllium: [He] 2s2).[19]
Groups included in the transition metals

The definition of a transition metal, as given by IUPAC, is an element whose atom has an incomplete d sub-shell, or which can give rise to cations with an incomplete d sub-shell.[108] By this definition all of the elements in groups 3–11 are transition metals. The IUPAC definition therefore excludes group 12, comprising zinc, cadmium and mercury, from the transition metals category.

Some chemists treat the categories "d-block elements" and "transition metals" interchangeably, thereby including groups 3–12 among the transition metals. In this instance the group 12 elements are treated as a special case of transition metal in which the d electrons are not ordinarily involved in chemical bonding. The recent discovery that mercury can use its d electrons in the formation of mercury(IV) fluoride (HgF4) has prompted some commentators to suggest that mercury can be regarded as a transition metal.[109] Other commentators, such as Jensen,[110] have argued that the formation of a compound like HgF4 can occur only under highly abnormal conditions. As such, mercury could not be regarded as a transition metal by any reasonable interpretation of the ordinary meaning of the term.[110]

Still other chemists further exclude the group 3 elements from the definition of a transition metal. They do so on the basis that the group 3 elements do not form any ions having a partially occupied d shell and do not therefore exhibit any properties characteristic of transition metal chemistry.[111] In this case, only groups 4–11 are regarded as transition metals.
Period 6 and 7 elements in group 3

Although scandium and yttrium are always the first two group 3 elements, the identity of the next two elements is not agreed upon; they are either lanthanum and actinium, or lutetium and lawrencium. Although there are some strong physical and chemical arguments supporting the latter arrangement not all authors are convinced.[112] The current IUPAC definition of the term "lanthanoid" includes fifteen elements including both lanthanum and lutetium, and that of "transition element"[108] applies to lanthanum and actinium, as well as lutetium but not lawrencium, since it does not correctly follow the Aufbau principle. Normally, the 103rd electron would enter the d-subshell, but quantum mechanical research has found that the configuration is actually [Rn] 5f14 7s2 7p1[n 11] due to relativistic effects.[113][114] IUPAC thus has not recommended a specific format for the in-line-f-block periodic table, leaving the dispute open.

Lanthanum and actinium are sometimes considered the remaining members of group 3.[115] In their most commonly encountered tripositive ion forms, these elements do not possess any partially filled f-orbitals, thus continuing the scandium—yttrium—lanthanum—actinium trend, in which all the elements have relationship similar to that of elements of the calcium—strontium—barium—radium series, the elements' left neighbors in s-block. However, different behavior is observed in other d-block groups, especially in group 4, in which zirconium, hafnium and rutherfordium share similar chemical properties lacking a clear trend.

In other tables, lutetium and lawrencium are classified as the remaining members of group 3.[116] In these tables, lutetium and lawrencium end (or sometimes follow) the lanthanide and actinide series, respectively. Since the f-shell is nominally full in the ground state electron configuration for both of these metals, they behave most similarly to other period 6 and period 7 transition metals compared to the other lanthanides and actinides, and thus logically exhibit properties similar to those of scandium and yttrium. (This behavior is expected for lawrencium, but has not been observed because sufficient quantities of lawrencium have not yet been synthesized.)

Some tables, including the IUPAC table[117][n 12] refer to all lanthanides and actinides by a marker in group 3. This sometimes is believed to be the inclusion of all 30 lanthanide and actinide elements as included in group 3. Lanthanides, as electropositive trivalent metals, all have a closely related chemistry, and all show many similarities to scandium and yttrium, but they also show additional properties characteristic of their partially filled f-orbitals which are not common to scandium and yttrium.

Exclusion of all elements is based on properties of earlier actinides, which show a much wider variety of chemistry (for instance, in range of oxidation states) within their series than the lanthanides, and comparisons to scandium and yttrium are even less useful.[118] However, these elements are destabilized,[119] and if they were stabilized to more closely match chemistry laws, they would be similar to lanthanides as well. Also, the later actinides from berkelium onwards behave more like the corresponding lanthanides, with only the valence +3 (and sometimes +2 and +4) shown.[118]

Optimal form

The many different forms of periodic table have prompted the question of whether there is an optimal or definitive form of periodic table. The answer to this question is thought to depend on whether the chemical periodicity seen to occur among the elements has an underlying truth, effectively hard-wired into the universe, or if any such periodicity is instead the product of subjective human interpretation, contingent upon the circumstances, beliefs and predilections of human observers. An objective basis for chemical periodicity would settle the questions about the location of hydrogen and helium, and the composition of group 3. Such an underlying truth, if it exists, is thought to have not yet been discovered. In its absence, the many different forms of periodic table can be regarded as variations on the theme of chemical periodicity, each of which explores and emphasizes different aspects, properties, perspectives and relationships of and among the elements.[n 13] The ubiquity of the standard or medium-long periodic table is thought to be a result of this layout having a good balance of features in terms of ease of construction and size, and its depiction of atomic order and periodic trends.[49][120]

Votes: +0 / -0