Biological Elements/Trace Elements

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the elements present in the human body, exploring the accuracy of claims regarding the presence of various elements, including lanthanoids, actinoids, noble gases, and synthetic elements. Participants examine the implications of measurement sensitivity and the potential for rare elements to exist in trace amounts, as well as the biological significance of these elements.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that all elements, except noble gases and synthetic elements, are present in the human body to some extent, while others argue that synthetic elements cannot be naturally occurring in the body.
  • A participant suggests that the body contains atoms of every element due to the vast number of atoms present, but acknowledges that elements with very short half-lives would not be found.
  • Concerns are raised about the limitations of measurement techniques in detecting rare elements, with some arguing that contamination and sensitivity issues could lead to inconsistent findings.
  • Some participants assert that nuclear explosions have introduced synthetic elements into the biosphere, which could result in trace amounts being present in the human body.
  • There is a discussion about the biological significance of elements, with a focus on the abundance of certain elements and their potential roles in life processes.
  • One participant highlights that elements like beryllium are extremely rare and questions the likelihood of life evolving a dependency on such substances.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the presence of noble gases and synthetic elements in the human body, with no consensus reached on whether all elements can be considered present. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of measurement limitations and the biological significance of rare elements.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the presence of certain elements may depend on environmental factors and the historical context of nuclear testing, which complicates the understanding of element abundance in the human body.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying human biology, biochemistry, environmental science, or anyone curious about the elemental composition of living organisms.

questar
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to determine the elements that are present in the human body. Online I'm finding inconsistent determinations. I'm reading that some lanthanoids are present, then on another site, none are present, though I see no reason that all lanthanoids would be present to some miniscule degree. The same with the actinoids, platinum group metals as well as the other extremely rare elements, Technetium, Rhenium, Astatine and Francium.

My question is, is it technically accurate to say that all elements, with the exception of the noble gases and the synthetics, are present in the human body? In other words, all elements that we are naturally exposed to (i.e. present in nature), are, to some limited extent, present in our bodies. This appears most accurate to me, what say you?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
questar said:
I'm trying to determine the elements that are present in the human body. Online I'm finding inconsistent determinations. I'm reading that some lanthanoids are present, then on another site, none are present, though I see no reason that all lanthanoids would be present to some miniscule degree. The same with the actinoids, platinum group metals as well as the other extremely rare elements, Technetium, Rhenium, Astatine and Francium.

My question is, is it technically accurate to say that all elements, with the exception of the noble gases and the synthetics, are present in the human body? In other words, all elements that we are naturally exposed to (i.e. present in nature), are, to some limited extent, present in our bodies. This appears most accurate to me, what say you?

I agree with you, only I would not exclude the noble gases and synthetic elements. I would say that there are atoms of every element in your body. Your body has on the order of 10^27 atoms in it, so even exceedingly rare atoms will be present at some level. The only exception would be elements with very short half lives. I'm sure even man-made elements like Neptunium and Plutonium are present in your body at some low level.
 
Something to keep in mind when thinking about rare elements/compounds and small quantities is that of the nature of measurement in determining these quantities. You can assume whatever you want but the fact is that measurements have limits to their sensitivity as well as error bars. There may very well be some small amount of something present but the methods applied may not have been sensitive enough to detect it or the contamination from the laboratory environment may have led to a greater amount of the substance than the actual sample. You are likely finding mixed results about rare elements because the quantities are so small that signal:noise makes a judgment hard to make, especially if the work was performed in varying environments, conditions, methodologies etc.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
phyzguy said:
I agree with you, only I would not exclude the noble gases and synthetic elements... I'm sure even man-made elements like Neptunium and Plutonium are present in your body at some low level.

It's my understanding that all elements/atomic numbers 1-98 are naturally occurring, albeit some only in minute amounts. Therefore it seems reasonable to me that all these elements, including as you pointed out, the noble gases, could be found in "metaminute" amounts within the human body. However, synthetic elements are not naturally occurring- so I'm at a loss as to how they could be found in the environment, let alone the body.

Just to note that when I say natural, I mean terrestrial... perhaps there is an atmosphere composed entirely of ununoctium in the Andromeda galaxy, but we seem to be far removed from its physical presence.
 
questar said:
However, synthetic elements are not naturally occurring- so I'm at a loss as to how they could be found in the environment, let alone the body.
Nuclear explosions released elements beyond plutonium in the multi-kilogram-range. If you distribute 1kg evenly in the biosphere, your body will have some atoms. This even distribution is not real, of course, but a few atoms are really reasonable.

Just to note that when I say natural, I mean terrestrial... perhaps there is an atmosphere composed entirely of ununoctium in the Andromeda galaxy, but we seem to be far removed from its physical presence.
Spectroscopy shows other stars and other objects have chemical compositions similar to our solar system.
 
mfb said:
Nuclear explosions released elements beyond plutonium in the multi-kilogram-range. If you distribute 1kg evenly in the biosphere, your body will have some atoms. This even distribution is not real, of course, but a few atoms are really reasonable.

Right. This Wikipedia page shows that there have been over 2000 documented nuclear explosions on the Earth. As mfb points out the products of these explosions have been scattered through the biosphere. Short half-life nuclei will have decayed, but long half-life elements, including elements like Neptunium, Plutonium, Californium, etc. will still be around.
 
phyzguy said:
...Short half-life nuclei will have decayed, but long half-life elements, including elements like Neptunium, Plutonium, Californium, etc. will still be around.

So basically all of the elements that can be found in the body are the same as those that can be found in the environment that the body inhabits. The synthetic elements are unlikely to be found in the body for the same reason that they are unlikely to be found in the environment- and that reason is that they have decayed.

Hydrogen...Californium=likely present in the human body

Einsteinium...Ununoctium= not likely present in the human body
(though if any atoms remain it would be the result of nuclear testing)
 
Last edited:
In regards to biological benefits, I believe this outline is fairly accurate. It begins with the elements of greatest mass, then the lesser essentials, then on to those that are suspected of being lesser essentials, and finally those with unknown benefits in what remains of the indigenous and the 20 synthetic elements.

I'm obviously new at this, but I find it interesting that most all of the confirmed biologically beneficial elements are those with an atomic number ranging from 1-30 with very few exceptions- the three noble gases... and Beryllium alone. They say Hydrogen is the individualistic element, but it seems from an biological standpoint, Beryllium is the odd man out.

I. ELEMENTS [118]
1. Essential [19]
a. Greater [5]
8 Oxygen O
6 Carbon C
1 Hydrogen H
7 Nitrogen N
20 Calcium Ca
b. Lesser (Traces) [14]
15 Phosphorous P
19 Potassium K
16 Sulfur S
11 Sodium Na
17 Chlorine Cl
12 Magnesium Mg
26 Iron Fe
9 Fluorine F
30 Zinc Zn
29 Copper Cu
34 Selenium Se
25 Manganese Mn
53 Iodine I
27 Cobalt Co
2. Potential Essential [18]
a. Lesser (Traces) [18]
3 Lithium Li
5 Boron B
13 Aluminum Al
14 Silicon Si
21 Scandium Sc
22 Titanium Ti
23 Vanadium V
24 Chromium Cr
28 Nickel Ni
31 Gallium Ga
32 Germanium Ge
33 Arsenic As
35 Bromine Br
37 Rubidium Rb
38 Strontium Sr
42 Molybdenum Mo
48 Cadmium Cd
50 Tin Sn
3. Unknown Potential [81]
a. Indigenous [61]
b. Synthetic [20]
 
I think the point you need to consider is the abundance of the different elements. Look at the abundance graph at this Wikipedia page. Beryllium is more than a million times rarer than elements like carbon, oxygen, or nitrogen. Given this, I would not expect life to evolve a dependency on beryllium. Life that was dependent on such a rare substance would be at a real disadvantage compared to life that was only dependent on more common elements.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #10
phyzguy said:
...Beryllium is more than a million times rarer than elements like carbon, oxygen, or nitrogen. Given this, I would not expect life to evolve a dependency on beryllium. Life that was dependent on such a rare substance would be at a real disadvantage compared to life that was only dependent on more common elements.

It is true that beryllium is much less abundant than carbon, oxygen and nitrogen... but what about the essential trace elements? Beryllium is just as abundant as cobalt and copper, and more abundant than both iodine and selenium. All four are considered essential elements, all four are more rare than beryllium, yet human life evolved a dependancy on all four of them. There are also other elements that are suspected of being necessary- many of which are also less abundant than beryllium.
 
  • #11
The distribution and the chemical properties also matter. Something that accumulates in very few places, with chemically inert molecules and without an unreplaceable role in some molecule won't become an essential element.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
10K