ABSTRACT
The demarcation of the chemical elements into metals and non-metals dates back to the dawn of Dmitri Mendeleev's construction of the periodic table; it still represents the cornerstone of our view of modern chemistry. In this contribution, a particular emphasis will be attached to the question 'Why do the chemical elements of the periodic table exist either as metals or non-metals under ambient conditions?' This is perhaps most apparent in the p-block of the periodic table where one sees an almost-diagonal line separating metals and non-metals. The first searching, quantum-mechanical considerations of this question were put forward by Hund in 1934. Interestingly, the very first discussion of the problem-in fact, a pre-quantum-mechanical approach-was made earlier, by Goldhammer in 1913 and Herzfeld in 1927. Their simple rationalization, in terms of atomic properties which confer metallic or non-metallic status to elements across the periodic table, leads to what is commonly called the Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion for metallization. For a variety of undoubtedly complex reasons, the Goldhammer-Herzfeld theory lay dormant for close to half a century. However, since that time the criterion has been repeatedly applied, with great success, to many systems and materials exhibiting non-metal to metal transitions in order to predict, and understand, the precise conditions for metallization. Here, we review the application of Goldhammer-Herzfeld theory to the question of the metallic versus non-metallic status of chemical elements within the periodic system. A link between that theory and the work of Sir Nevill Mott on the metal-non-metal transition is also highlighted. The application of the 'simple', but highly effective Goldhammer-Herzfeld and Mott criteria, reveal when a chemical element of the periodic table will behave as a metal, and when it will behave as a non-metal. The success of these different, but converging approaches, lends weight to the idea of a simple, universal criterion for rationalizing the instantly-recognizable structure of the periodic table where the metals are here, the non-metals are there The challenge of the metallic and non-metallic states of oxides is also briefly introduced. This article is part of the theme issue 'Mendeleev and the periodic table'.
ABSTRACT
The classification of a chemical element as either 'metal' or 'non-metal' continues to form the basis of an instantly recognizable, universal representation of the periodic table (Mendeleeff D. 1905 The principles of chemistry, vol. II, p. 23; Poliakoff M. & Tang S. 2015 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373: , 20140211). Here, we review major, pre-quantum-mechanical innovations (Goldhammer DA. 1913 Dispersion und Absorption des Lichtes; Herzfeld KF. 1927 Phys. Rev. 29: , 701-705) that allow an understanding of the metallic or non-metallic status of the chemical elements under both ambient and extreme conditions. A special emphasis will be placed on recent experimental advances that investigate how the electronic properties of chemical elements vary with temperature and density, and how this invariably relates to a changing status of the chemical elements. Thus, the prototypical non-metals, hydrogen and helium, becomes metallic at high densities; and the acknowledged metals, mercury, rubidium and caesium, transform into their non-metallic forms at low elemental densities. This reflects the fundamental fact that, at temperatures above the absolute zero of temperature, there is therefore no clear dividing line between metals and non-metals. Our conventional demarcation of chemical elements as metals or non-metals within the periodic table is of course governed by our experience of the nature of the elements under ambient conditions. Examination of these other situations helps us to examine the exact divisions of the chemical elements into metals and non-metals (Mendeleeff D. 1905 The principles of chemistry, vol. II, p. 23).
