GeO2: enthalpy of formation

14 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 10, model 4).

Systems: Ge–O

Literature values

Enthalpy of formation of GeO2 reported in the literature (14)
Value	Phase as printed	T (K)	Class	Method	System	Source	Location
-574 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	GeO2 hexagonal	298.15	experimental	EMF solid electrolyte	Ge–O	[1] Dinsdale 2015 cites Katayama 1975	Table 4, p. 4, row 10 report
-556 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 8	GeO2 hexagonal	298.15	experimental	Dissolution calorimetry	Ge–O	[1] Dinsdale 2015 cites Jolly 1952 doi	Table 4, p. 4, row 3 report
-556 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 5	GeO2 hexagonal	298.15	experimental	Equilibrium studies in Ge-H-O system	Ge–O	[1] Dinsdale 2015 cites Yokokawa 1957 doi	Table 4, p. 4, row 4 report
-555.4 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 2	GeO2 hexagonal	298.15	experimental	Equilibrium studies in Ge-H-O system	Ge–O	[1] Dinsdale 2015 cites Yokokawa 1957 doi	Table 4, p. 4, row 5 report
-554.7 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1	GeO2 hexagonal	298.15	experimental	Fluorine combustion calorimetry	Ge–O	[1] Dinsdale 2015 cites Gross 1966 doi	Table 4, p. 4, row 9 report
-554.7 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1	GeO2 hexagonal	298.15	experimental	EMF solid electrolyte	Ge–O	[1] Dinsdale 2015 cites Katayama 1975	Table 4, p. 4, row 11 report
-553 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 5	GeO2 hexagonal	298.15	experimental	Solution calorimetry in HF/H2O2 mixtures	Ge–O	[1] Dinsdale 2015 cites Bills 1964 doi	Table 4, p. 4, row 7 report
-540.1 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	GeO2 hexagonal	298.15	experimental	Oxygen combustion	Ge–O	[1] Dinsdale 2015 cites Mah 1962	Table 4, p. 4, row 6 report
-538 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	GeO2 hexagonal	298.15	experimental	Oxygen combustion	Ge–O	[1] Dinsdale 2015 cites Hahn 1940 doi	Table 4, p. 4, row 2 report
-536 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	GeO2 hexagonal	298.15	experimental	Oxygen combustion	Ge–O	[1] Dinsdale 2015 cites Becker 1932 doi	Table 4, p. 4, row 1 report
-556.5 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 2	GeO2 hexagonal	298.15	model	Assessed	Ge–O	[1] Dinsdale 2015 cites Faktor 1965 doi	Table 4, p. 4, row 8 report
-556.1 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 2	GeO2 hexagonal	298.15	model	Assessed	Ge–O	[1] Dinsdale 2015	Table 4, p. 4, row 14 report
-554.7 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1	GeO2 hexagonal	298.15	model	Assessed	Ge–O	[1] Dinsdale 2015 cites Gurvich 1990	Table 4, p. 4, row 12 report
-553.82 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	GeO2 hexagonal	298.15	model	Assessed	Ge–O	[1] Dinsdale 2015 cites Richet 1990 doi	Table 4, p. 4, row 13 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 GeO2
Value	Unit	Printed	Reading	Method (class, basis)	Effective
-574	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		0.05	13.8 (emf, cleaned_below_threshold)	13.8
-556	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	8	0.05	9.6 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated)	9.6
-556	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	5	0.05	10.5 (equilibration_other, calibrated)	10.5
-555.4	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	2	0.05	10.5 (equilibration_other, calibrated)	10.5
-554.7	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1	0.05	3 (combustion_calorimetry, cleaned_below_threshold)	3
-554.7	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1	0.05	13.8 (emf, cleaned_below_threshold)	13.8
-553	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	5	0.05	9.6 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated)	9.6
-540.1	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		0.05	3 (combustion_calorimetry, cleaned_below_threshold)	3
-538	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		0.05	3 (combustion_calorimetry, cleaned_below_threshold)	3
-536	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		0.05	3 (combustion_calorimetry, cleaned_below_threshold)	3
-556.5	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	2	0.05	11.7 (model_calculated, calibrated)	11.7
-556.1	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	2	0.05	11.7 (model_calculated, calibrated)	11.7
-554.7	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1	0.05	11.7 (model_calculated, calibrated)	11.7
-553.82	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		0.005	11.7 (model_calculated, calibrated)	11.7

Sources

A. T. Dinsdale, A. Akhmetova, A. V. Khvan, N. Aristova, A Critical Assessment of Thermodynamic and Phase Diagram Data for the Ge-O System, J. Phase Equilib. Diffus. 36, 254-261 (2015). doi:10.1007/s11669-015-0379-1

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}
}