5

Wikipedia says that Ka was a symbol for potassium once.

Current symbol is K.

Name changed due to a standardization of, modernization of, or update to older formerly-used symbol.

When was the symbol for potassium changed from Ka to K? What was the rationale behind that?


Some findings. The INTERNET Database of Periodic Tables's first image with a symbol for potassium is of Charles Daubeny's system using K in 1831. Surprisingly I could not find any use of Ka. But there are many German-speaking books using Ka in the late 19th century, as well as some English ones. More recent findings of Ka: 1894, 1943, 2013

mhchem
  • 3,316
  • 2
  • 16
  • 34

1 Answers1

3

The symbol for potassium was mostly K in the English speaking world and even some old German book use K (as early as 1829 search Kalium in this book). So there was no official change from Ka to K, because both symbols were concurrently used in various parts of the world, just one symbol, Ka, wiped out of fashion. Perhaps the German logic was to retain (Ka)lium and (Na)trium. It is even interesting to see Ka and K being used in the same paper by no other than Bunsen and Kirchoff (the discoverer of rubidium and cesium). For example,

Image

And their beautiful spectra, note Ka on the left. Available for free from Taylor and Francis or use Google Scholar. G*. Kirchhoff & R. Bunsen (1861) XLII. Chemical analysis by spectrum observations.— Second memoir , The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 22:148, 329-349, DOI: 10.1080/14786446108643164*

enter image description here

Humphrey Davy did not propose a symbol for sodium or potassium (from soda ash and potash, in 1807) because he was not 100% sure if they were elements. He implied that even if someone later shows that they are elements, the names can be retained as elements obtained from those metals.

AChem
  • 40,037
  • 2
  • 63
  • 126
  • 1
    "Available for free from RSC"? Where? – mhchem Oct 14 '21 at 20:01
  • Google Scholar the DOI, and the first result is that paper. Sorry, it is from Taylor & Francis. – AChem Oct 14 '21 at 20:55
  • Neither https://doi.org/10.1080/14786446108643164 nor https://doi.org/10.1039/QJ8611300270 are freely accessible for me. – mhchem Oct 15 '21 at 21:10
  • If you really want to read this article, request a friend from a university. For some reasons, I could see pdf option in Google Scholar. – AChem Oct 15 '21 at 21:27