Cs2MoO4: enthalpy of formation

7 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 6, model 1); experimental median -216.357 kJ/mol-atom (n = 6).

Systems: Cs–Mo–O

Literature values

Enthalpy of formation of Cs2MoO4 reported in the literature (7)
Value	Phase as printed	T (K)	Class	Method	System	Source	Location
-216.384 kJ/mol-atom ± 0.22	α-Cs2MoO4	298.15	experimental		Cs–Mo–O	[1] Smith 2021 cites Smith 2018 doi	Table 2, p. 4, row 2 report
-216.384 kJ/mol-atom ± 1.07714	α-Cs2MoO4	298.15	experimental	solution calorimetry	Cs–Mo–O	[1] Smith 2021 cites Smith 2017 doi	Table 3, p. 4, row 2 report
-216.357 kJ/mol-atom ± 1.06429	α-Cs2MoO4	298.15	experimental	solution calorimetry	Cs–Mo–O	[1] Smith 2021 cites Cordfunke 1990	Table 3, p. 4, row 1 report
-216.357 kJ/mol-atom ± 0.142857	α-Cs2MoO4	298.15	experimental		Cs–Mo–O	[1] Smith 2021 cites Cordfunke 1990	Table 2, p. 4, row 1 report
-216.223 kJ/mol-atom ± 0.158571	α-Cs2MoO4	298.15	experimental		Cs–Mo–O	[1] Smith 2021 cites Benigni 2020 doi	Table 2, p. 4, row 3 report
-216.223 kJ/mol-atom ± 1.07429	α-Cs2MoO4	298.15	experimental	solution calorimetry	Cs–Mo–O	[1] Smith 2021 cites Benigni 2020 doi	Table 3, p. 4, row 3 report
-216.829 kJ/mol-atom	α-Cs2MoO4	298.15	model		Cs–Mo–O	[1] Smith 2021	Table 8, p. 7, row 1 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 Cs2MoO4
Value	Unit	Printed	Reading	Method (class, basis)	Effective
-216.384	kJ/mol-atom	0.22	7.143e-4	3.5 (unknown, calibrated)	3.5
-216.384	kJ/mol-atom	1.077	7.143e-4	3.2 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated)	3.2
-216.357	kJ/mol-atom	1.064	0.007143	3.2 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated)	3.2
-216.357	kJ/mol-atom	0.1429	0.007143	3.5 (unknown, calibrated)	3.5
-216.223	kJ/mol-atom	0.1586	7.143e-4	3.5 (unknown, calibrated)	3.5
-216.223	kJ/mol-atom	1.074	7.143e-4	3.2 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated)	3.2
-216.829	kJ/mol-atom		0.007143	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9

Sources

A.L. Smith, T.N. Pham Thi, C. Guéneau, J.-C. Dumas, E. Epifano, W. van Burik et al., Thermodynamic modelling assessment of the ternary system Cs-Mo-O, Calphad 75, 102350 (2021). doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2021.102350

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}
}