Au2Ce: enthalpy of formation

10 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 5, model 3, DFT 2); experimental median -70.6 kJ/mol-atom (n = 5); Materials Project -65.398 kJ/mol-atom (mp-aaacjhwc); OQMD -73.098 kJ/mol-atom (oqmd-2025792).

Systems: Au–Ce

Literature values

Enthalpy of formation of Au2Ce reported in the literature (10)
ValuePhase as printedT (K)ClassMethodSystemSourceLocationQuote
-73 kJ/mol-atomCeAu21123experimentalCalorimetryAu–Ce[1] Moustaine 2016
cites LomelloeTafin 2006
Table 2, p. 3, row 16
report
-71.5 kJ/mol-atom ± 2CeAu21123experimentalCalorimetryAu–Ce[1] Moustaine 2016
cites Janghorban 1994
Table 2, p. 3, row 15
report
-70.6 kJ/mol-atom ± 2CeAu2298.15experimentalCalorimetryAu–Ce[1] Moustaine 2016
cites Janghorban 1994
Table 2, p. 3, row 19
report
-57.5 kJ/mol-atom ± 4.7Au2Ce298.15experimentalcalorimetryAu–Ce[2] Dong 2013
cites Fitzner 1993
Table 4, p. 4, row 11
report
-57.5 kJ/mol-atom ± 4.7CeAu2298.15experimentalCalorimetryAu–Ce[1] Moustaine 2016
cites Fitzner 1993 doi
Table 2, p. 3, row 17
report
-70 kJ/mol-atomAu2Ce289modelAu–Ce[2] Dong 2013Table 4, p. 4, row 12
report
-70 kJ/mol-atomCeAu2298.15modelOptimizationAu–Ce[1] Moustaine 2016
cites Dong 2013 doi
Table 2, p. 3, row 20
report
-66 kJ/mol-atomCeAu2298.15modelOptimizationAu–Ce[1] Moustaine 2016Table 2, p. 3, row 21
report
-71.46 kJ/mol-atomCeAu2298.15DFTab initioAu–Ce[1] Moustaine 2016
cites Blo
Table 2, p. 3, row 18
report
-71.46 kJ/mol-atomAu2Ce0DFTAu–Ce[2] Dong 2013Table 4, p. 4, row 10
report

Uncertainty budget

Components kept separate, in the value's unit (literature SCHEMA.md, UNCERTAINTY_CALIBRATION.md): effective = max(sqrt(max(printed, reading, method)^2 + composition^2 + conversion^2), scatter). The method floor is the robust between-study scatter of the method class in ORCHID (calibrated) or a documented prior; printed values and printed uncertainties are unchanged.

Uncertainty budget of the literature values of Au2Ce
ValueUnitPrintedReadingMethod (class, basis)CompositionScatterConversionEffective
-73kJ/mol-atom0.53.2 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated)3.2
-71.5kJ/mol-atom20.053.2 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated)3.2
-70.6kJ/mol-atom20.053.2 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated)3.2
-57.5kJ/mol-atom4.70.053.2 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated)4.7
-57.5kJ/mol-atom4.70.053.2 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated)4.7
-70kJ/mol-atom0.053.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-70kJ/mol-atom0.53.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-66kJ/mol-atom0.53.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-71.46kJ/mol-atom0.0058.395 (dft, calibrated)8.395
-71.46kJ/mol-atom0.0058.395 (dft, calibrated)8.395

DFT formation energies

Lowest-energy entries at this composition. Materials Project and OQMD use different energy references and are never averaged. 1 eV/atom = 96.485 kJ/mol-atom.

DFT formation energy of Au2Ce
SourceEntrykJ/mol-atomeV/atomSpace groupE above hull (kJ/mol-atom)E above hull (eV/atom)Theoretical
Materials Projectmp-aaacjhwc-65.398-0.677809Imma00no
OQMDoqmd-2025792-73.098-0.757613Imma00yes

DFT sources: A. Jain et al., Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation, APL Materials 1 (2013) 011002. doi:10.1063/1.4812323 (CC BY 4.0); J. E. Saal et al., JOM 65 (2013) 1501-1509; S. Kirklin et al., npj Comput. Mater. 1 (2015) 15010. doi:10.1007/s11837-013-0755-4 (CC BY 4.0);

Sources

  1. D. Moustaine, K. Mahdouk, Thermodynamic reassessment of the cerium gold binary system, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 683, 599-609 (2016). doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.05.116
  2. H.Q. Dong, X.M. Tao, T. Laurila, V. Vuorinen, M. Paulasto-Kröckel, Thermodynamic modeling of Au–Ce–Sn ternary system, Calphad 42, 38-50 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2013.07.013