AuSb2: enthalpy of formation

15 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 7, model 8).

Literature values

Enthalpy of formation of AuSb2 reported in the literature (15)
Value	Phase as printed	T (K)	Class	System	Source	Location	Quote
-5.4 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.6	AuSb2	298.15	experimental	Au–Sb	[1] Gierlotka 2013 cites Hayer 1995	Table 2, p. 2, row 4 report
-4.9 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	AuSb2	363	experimental	Au–Sb	[2] Kim 2002 cites Biltz 1934 doi	Table III, p. 4, row 1 report
-4.9 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	AuSb2	363	experimental	Au–Sb	[1] Gierlotka 2013 cites Blitz 1934	Table 2, p. 2, row 8 report
-4.35 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.13	AuSb2	298.15	experimental	Au–Sb	[2] Kim 2002 cites Jena 1968	Table III, p. 4, row 2 report
-4.35 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.13	AuSb2	298.15	experimental	Au–Sb	[1] Gierlotka 2013 cites Jena 1968	Table 2, p. 2, row 1 report
-3.14 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	AuSb2	723	experimental	Au–Sb	[2] Kim 2002 cites Kleppa 1956 doi	Table III, p. 4, row 3 report
-3.14 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	AuSb2	723	experimental	Au–Sb	[1] Gierlotka 2013 cites Kleppa 1956 doi	Table 2, p. 2, row 9 report
-6.364 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	AuSb2	298.15	model	Au–Sb	[2] Kim 2002 cites Chevalier 1989 doi	Table III, p. 4, row 5 report
-6.364 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	AuSb2	298.15	model	Au–Sb	[1] Gierlotka 2013 cites Chevalier 1989 doi	Table 2, p. 2, row 3 report
-5.54 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	AuSb2	298.15	model	Au–Sb	[1] Gierlotka 2013 cites Liu 2003 doi	Table 2, p. 2, row 6 report
-5.5 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	AuSb2	298.15	model	Au–Sb	[1] Gierlotka 2013 cites Kim 2002 doi	Table 2, p. 2, row 5 report
-5.41 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	AuSb2	298.15	model	Au–Sb	[1] Gierlotka 2013 cites Chevalier 1989 doi	Table 2, p. 2, row 2 report
-5.41 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	AuSb2	298.15	model	Au–Sb	[2] Kim 2002 cites Chevalier 1989 doi	Table III, p. 4, row 4 report
-5.40955 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	AuSb2	298.15	model	Au–Sb	[3] Wang 2011	p. 5 report	The enthalpy of formation of AuSb2 referred to fcc A1(Au) and rhombohedral A7(Sb) at 298 K is calculated to be -5409.55 J/mol, which agrees well with the experimental values measured by Hayer and Castanet [41] (-5400 ± 600 J/mol) as well as the assessed values by Liu et al. [20] (-4962 J/mol) and Kim et al. [32] (-5500 J/mol).
-5.148 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	AuSb2	298.15	model	Au–Sb	[1] Gierlotka 2013	Table 2, p. 2, row 7 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 AuSb2
Value	Unit	Printed	Reading	Method (class, basis)	Effective
-5.4	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0.6	5.000e-4	10.5 (unknown, calibrated)	10.5
-4.9	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		0.05	10.5 (unknown, calibrated)	10.5
-4.9	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		5.000e-4	10.5 (unknown, calibrated)	10.5
-4.35	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0.13	0.005	10.5 (unknown, calibrated)	10.5
-4.35	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0.13	5.000e-4	10.5 (unknown, calibrated)	10.5
-3.14	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		0.005	10.5 (unknown, calibrated)	10.5
-3.14	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		5.000e-4	10.5 (unknown, calibrated)	10.5
-6.364	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		5.000e-4	11.7 (model_calculated, calibrated)	11.7
-6.364	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		5.000e-4	11.7 (model_calculated, calibrated)	11.7
-5.54	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		5.000e-4	11.7 (model_calculated, calibrated)	11.7
-5.5	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		5.000e-4	11.7 (model_calculated, calibrated)	11.7
-5.41	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		5.000e-4	11.7 (model_calculated, calibrated)	11.7
-5.41	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		0.005	11.7 (model_calculated, calibrated)	11.7
-5.40955	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		5.000e-6	11.7 (model_calculated, calibrated)	11.7
-5.148	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		5.000e-4	11.7 (model_calculated, calibrated)	11.7

Sources

Wojciech Gierlotka, Thermodynamic description of the binary Au–Sb and ternary Au–In–Sb systems, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 579, 533-539 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2013.04.186
Jong Hoon Kim, Sang Won Jeong, Hyuck Mo Lee, A thermodynamic study of phase equilibria in the Au-Sb-Sn solder system, Journal of Elec Materi 31, 557-563 (2002). doi:10.1007/s11664-002-0125-4
J. Wang, Y.J. Liu, L.B. Liu, H.Y. Zhou, Z.P. Jin, Thermodynamic modeling of the Au–Sb–Si ternary system, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 509, 3057-3064 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2010.11.199

Please cite

R. Arróyave, J. Saal, D. Shin, ORCHID-Values: thermodynamic and phase-equilibrium values read from the literature (version 2026.10; Version 1, machine-extracted), Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.23735569
R. Arróyave, J. Saal, D. Shin, ORCHID-Parity: DFT-vs-experiment formation-enthalpy benchmark (version 2026.10; Version 1, machine-extracted), Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.23735943
R. Arróyave, J. Saal, D. Shin, ORCHID data: umbrella record of the ORCHID datasets (version 2026.10; Version 1, machine-extracted), Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.23736065

Also cite the original source of every value you use (paper_citation / paper_doi, and cited_dois for values the paper cites from earlier work); A. Jain et al., The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation, APL Materials 1 (2013) 011002, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 (CC BY 4.0); J. E. Saal et al., JOM 65 (2013) 1501, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-013-0755-4 and S. Kirklin et al., npj Comput. Mater. 1 (2015) 15010, https://doi.org/10.1038/npjcompumats.2015.10 (CC BY 4.0); G. Kim, S. V. Meschel, P. Nash, W. Chen, Experimental formation enthalpies for intermetallic phases and other inorganic compounds, Scientific Data 4 (2017) 170162, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.162; B. Hallstedt, The SGTE collection of binary datasets, Calphad 89 (2025) 102833, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.calphad.2025.102833 (CC BY 4.0), and the original assessment named in each file. Version 1, machine-extracted: values were read by language-model readers constrained to quote their source and checked automatically, and the release was then audited on the printed pages by adversarial audits, an independent second review of fit-facing records and a preliminary human review of a frozen sample. Flags such as accepted and ESPEI-ready record screening results, not certification; known issues are listed in the release notes.

@misc{orchid_literature_2026,
  author    = {Arr{\'o}yave, Raymundo and Saal, James and Shin, Dongwon},
  title     = {{ORCHID-Values: thermodynamic and phase-equilibrium values read from the literature}},
  version   = {2026.10},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year      = {2026},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.23735569},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23735569},
  note      = {Version 1, machine-extracted}
}

@misc{orchid_dft_benchmark_2026,
  author    = {Arr{\'o}yave, Raymundo and Saal, James and Shin, Dongwon},
  title     = {{ORCHID-Parity: DFT-vs-experiment formation-enthalpy benchmark}},
  version   = {2026.10},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year      = {2026},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.23735943},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23735943},
  note      = {Version 1, machine-extracted}
}

@misc{orchid_data_2026,
  author    = {Arr{\'o}yave, Raymundo and Saal, James and Shin, Dongwon},
  title     = {{ORCHID data: umbrella record of the ORCHID datasets}},
  version   = {2026.10},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year      = {2026},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.23736065},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23736065},
  note      = {Version 1, machine-extracted}
}