Bi3Er5: enthalpy of formation

16 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 4, model 7, DFT 5); experimental median -79 kJ/mol-atom (n = 4); Materials Project -62.124 kJ/mol-atom (mp-aaaabuog); OQMD -64.128 kJ/mol-atom (oqmd-18567).

Systems: Bi–Er

Literature values

Enthalpy of formation of Bi3Er5 reported in the literature (16)
ValuePhase as printedT (K)ClassMethodSystemSourceLocationQuote
-81 kJ/mol-atomEr5Bi3298.15experimentalBi–Er[1] Wang 2017
cites Petrashkevich 1976
Table 9, p. 7, row 7
report
-81 kJ/mol-atomBi3Er5298.15experimentalBi–Er[2] Wang 2013
cites Petrashkevich 1976
Table 4, p. 4, row 1
report
-77 kJ/mol-atomBi3Er5298.15experimentalBi–Er[2] Wang 2013
cites Yamshchikov 1979
Table 4, p. 4, row 2
report
-77 kJ/mol-atomEr5Bi3298.15experimentalBi–Er[1] Wang 2017
cites Yamshchikov 1979
Table 9, p. 7, row 8
report
-70.28 kJ/mol-atomEr5Bi3modelCALPHADBi–Er[3] Bennoui 2022
cites Wang 2013 doi
Table 2, p. 5, row 21
report
-69 kJ/mol-atomEr5Bi3modelMiedema modelBi–Er[3] Bennoui 2022
cites Colinet 1984 doi
Table 2, p. 5, row 23
report
-69 kJ/mol-atomEr5Bi3modelBi–Er[1] Wang 2017
cites Colinet 1984 doi
Table 9, p. 7, row 6
report
-69 kJ/mol-atomBi3Er50modelMiedima modelBi–Er[2] Wang 2013
cites Colinet 1984 doi
Table 4, p. 4, row 4
report
-66.486 kJ/mol-atomEr5Bi3modelCALPHADBi–Er[3] Bennoui 2022
cites Wang 2017 doi
Table 2, p. 5, row 22
report
-66.486 kJ/mol-atomEr5Bi3modelBi–Er[1] Wang 2017Table 9, p. 7, row 9
report
-62.917 kJ/mol-atomEr5Bi3modelCALPHADBi–Er[3] Bennoui 2022Table 2, p. 5, row 17
report
-66.035 kJ/mol-atomBi3Er50DFTfirst-principlesBi–Er[2] Wang 2013Table 4, p. 4, row 3
report
-66.035 kJ/mol-atomEr5Bi30DFTDFTBi–Er[3] Bennoui 2022
cites Wang 2013 doi
Table 2, p. 5, row 20
report
-64.084 kJ/mol-atomEr5Bi30DFTDFTBi–Er[3] Bennoui 2022
cites Kirklin 2015 doi
Table 2, p. 5, row 18
report
-63.496 kJ/mol-atomEr5Bi30DFTDFTBi–Er[3] Bennoui 2022Table 2, p. 5, row 16
report
-62.157 kJ/mol-atomEr5Bi30DFTDFTBi–Er[3] Bennoui 2022
cites Jain 2013 doi
Table 2, p. 5, row 19
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 Bi3Er5
ValueUnitPrintedReadingMethod (class, basis)CompositionScatterConversionEffective
-81kJ/mol-atom0.53.5 (unknown, calibrated)3.5
-81kJ/mol-atom5.000e-43.5 (unknown, calibrated)3.5
-77kJ/mol-atom5.000e-43.5 (unknown, calibrated)3.5
-77kJ/mol-atom0.53.5 (unknown, calibrated)3.5
-70.28kJ/mol-atom0.0053.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-69kJ/mol-atom0.053.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-69kJ/mol-atom0.53.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-69kJ/mol-atom5.000e-43.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-66.486kJ/mol-atom5.000e-43.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-66.486kJ/mol-atom5.000e-43.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-62.917kJ/mol-atom5.000e-43.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-66.035kJ/mol-atom5.000e-48.395 (dft, calibrated)8.395
-66.035kJ/mol-atom5.000e-48.395 (dft, calibrated)8.395
-64.084kJ/mol-atom5.000e-48.395 (dft, calibrated)8.395
-63.496kJ/mol-atom5.000e-48.395 (dft, calibrated)8.395
-62.157kJ/mol-atom5.000e-48.395 (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 Bi3Er5
SourceEntrykJ/mol-atomeV/atomSpace groupE above hull (kJ/mol-atom)E above hull (eV/atom)Theoretical
Materials Projectmp-aaaabuog-62.124-0.643872Pnma00no
OQMDoqmd-18567-64.128-0.664644Pnma00no

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. Yafei Wang, Wentao Zhou, Shaoqiang Guo, Jinsuo Zhang, Thermodynamic properties of fission products (Pr, Ce, Er) in liquid bismuth by thermodynamic assessment, Journal of Nuclear Materials 495, 181-191 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2017.08.016
  2. Jinsan Wang, Changrong Li, Cuiping Guo, Zhenmin Du, Bo Wu, Thermodynamic assessment of the Bi–Er and the Bi–Dy systems, Thermochimica Acta 566, 44-49 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.tca.2013.05.024
  3. S. Bennoui, Y. Djaballah, V. Vassiliev, A. Belgacem-Bouzida, Thermodynamic Study of Er-Bi and Er-Te Systems by Combination of First-Principles Calculations and the CALPHAD Method, J. Phase Equilib. Diffus. 43, 126-138 (2022). doi:10.1007/s11669-022-00947-8