Rh2O3: enthalpy of formation

7 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 7).

Systems: O–Rh

Literature values

Enthalpy of formation of Rh2O3 reported in the literature (7)
Value	Phase as printed	T (K)	Class	Method	System	Source	Location
-451.9 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 16.7	Rh2O3	1045	experimental	EMF	O–Rh	[1] Gossé 2018 cites Kleykamp 1969 doi	Table 1, p. 3, row 2 report
-405.96 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1.15	Rh2O3	1107.5	experimental	EMF	O–Rh	[1] Gossé 2018 cites Nell 1997 doi	Table 1, p. 3, row 6 report
-405.53 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.26	Rh2O3	1273	experimental	DSC, EMF	O–Rh	[1] Gossé 2018 cites Jacob 1994 doi	Table 1, p. 3, row 7 report
-387.586 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	Rh2O3	298.15	experimental	TG and DTG	O–Rh	[1] Gossé 2018 cites Bayer 1976 doi	Table 1, p. 3, row 1 report
-360 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 3	Rh2O3	1016	experimental	EMF	O–Rh	[1] Gossé 2018 cites Mallika 1985 doi	Table 1, p. 3, row 3 report
-340.72 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	Rh2O3	298.15	experimental	manometric	O–Rh	[1] Gossé 2018 cites Schmahl 1964 doi	Table 1, p. 3, row 5 report
-338.21 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	Rh2O3	298.15	experimental	HTMS	O–Rh	[1] Gossé 2018 cites Tagirov 1975	Table 1, p. 3, row 4 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 Rh2O3
Value	Unit	Printed	Reading	Method (class, basis)	Effective
-451.9	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	16.7	0.05	23 (emf, cleaned_below_threshold)	23
-405.96	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1.15	0.005	23 (emf, cleaned_below_threshold)	23
-405.53	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0.26	0.005	23 (emf, cleaned_below_threshold)	23
-387.586	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		5.000e-4	20.5 (experimental_unspecified, cleaned_below_threshold)	20.5
-360	kJ/mol (basis unstated)	3	0.05	23 (emf, cleaned_below_threshold)	23
-340.72	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		0.005	20.5 (experimental_unspecified, cleaned_below_threshold)	20.5
-338.21	kJ/mol (basis unstated)		0.005	21 (kems_vapour, calibrated)	21

Sources

S. Gossé, S. Bordier, C. Guéneau, E. Brackx, R. Domenger, J. Rogez, Thermodynamic assessment of the rhodium-ruthenium-oxygen (Rh-Ru-O) system, Journal of Nuclear Materials 500, 252-264 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2017.12.034

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}
}