Sn3U: enthalpy of formation
14 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 12, unspecified 2); experimental median -39.7 kJ/mol-atom (n = 6); Materials Project -12.058 kJ/mol-atom (mp-aaaabece); OQMD -19.098 kJ/mol-atom (oqmd-18132).
Systems: Sn–U
Literature values
| Value | Phase as printed | T (K) | Class | Method | System | Source | Location | Quote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -43.47 kJ/mol-atom | USn3 | 794.15 | experimental | Sn–U | [1] Wang 2021 cites Colinet 1988 doi | Table 1, p. 3, row 10 report | ||
| -43.47 kJ/mol (basis unstated) | USn3 | 794.15 | experimental | solution calorimetry analysis | Sn–U | [1] Wang 2021 cites Colinet 1988 doi | p. 2 report | Colinet et al.[26] reported the enthalpy of formation of USn3 as - 35.3 kJ mol-1 at 25 C and - 43.47 kJ mol-1 at 521 C characterized by solution calorimetry analysis. |
| -43.2 kJ/mol-atom | USn3 | 794.15 | experimental | Sn–U | [1] Wang 2021 cites Pattanaik 2013 doi | Table 1, p. 3, row 11 report | ||
| -42.9 kJ/mol-atom | USn3 | 965.15 | experimental | Sn–U | [1] Wang 2021 cites Kadochnikov 1976 | Table 1, p. 3, row 12 report | ||
| -41.8 kJ/mol (basis unstated) | USn3 | 794.15 | experimental | emf measurements | Sn–U | [1] Wang 2021 cites Johnson 1962 | p. 2 report | Johnson et al.[24] reported the enthalpy of formation of USn3 as - 36.5 kJ mol-1 at 25 C and - 41.8 kJ mol-1 at 521 C using emf measurements. |
| -36.5 kJ/mol (basis unstated) | USn3 | 298.15 | experimental | emf measurements | Sn–U | [1] Wang 2021 cites Johnson 1962 | p. 2 report | Johnson et al.[24] reported the enthalpy of formation of USn3 as - 36.5 kJ mol-1 at 25 C and - 41.8 kJ mol-1 at 521 C using emf measurements. |
| -36.5 kJ/mol-atom | USn3 | 298.15 | experimental | Sn–U | [1] Wang 2021 cites Johnson 1962 | Table 1, p. 3, row 6 report | ||
| -35.3 kJ/mol (basis unstated) | USn3 | 298.15 | experimental | solution calorimetry analysis | Sn–U | [1] Wang 2021 cites Colinet 1988 doi | p. 2 report | Colinet et al.[26] reported the enthalpy of formation of USn3 as - 35.3 kJ mol-1 at 25 C and - 43.47 kJ mol-1 at 521 C characterized by solution calorimetry analysis. |
| -35.3 kJ/mol-atom | USn3 | 298.15 | experimental | Sn–U | [1] Wang 2021 cites Colinet 1988 doi | Table 1, p. 3, row 7 report | ||
| -24.06 kJ/mol (basis unstated) | USn3 | 794.15 | experimental | vapor pressure | Sn–U | [1] Wang 2021 cites Alcock 1962 | p. 2 report | For the thermodynamic properties of U-Sn binary system, Alcock et al.[22] reported the enthalpy of formation of USn3 as - 22.59 kJ mol-1 at 25 C using acid dissociation calorimetry and - 24.06 kJ mol-1 at 521 C using vapor pressure. |
| -24.06 kJ/mol-atom | USn3 | 794.15 | experimental | Sn–U | [1] Wang 2021 cites Alcock 1962 | Table 1, p. 3, row 8 report | ||
| -22.59 kJ/mol (basis unstated) | USn3 | 298.15 | experimental | acid dissociation calorimetry | Sn–U | [1] Wang 2021 cites Alcock 1962 | p. 2 report | For the thermodynamic properties of U-Sn binary system, Alcock et al.[22] reported the enthalpy of formation of USn3 as - 22.59 kJ mol-1 at 25 C using acid dissociation calorimetry and - 24.06 kJ mol-1 at 521 C using vapor pressure. |
| -41.8 kJ/mol-atom | USn3 | 794.15 | unspecified | Sn–U | [1] Wang 2021 cites Sheldon 1987 doi | Table 1, p. 3, row 9 report | ||
| -22.59 kJ/mol-atom | USn3 | 298.15 | unspecified | Sn–U | [1] Wang 2021 cites Palenzona 1995 doi | Table 1, p. 3, row 5 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.
| Value | Unit | Printed | Reading | Method (class, basis) | Composition | Scatter | Conversion | Effective |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -43.47 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.005 | 3.5 (unknown, calibrated) | 3.5 | ||||
| -43.47 | kJ/mol (basis unstated) | 0.005 | 12.8 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated) | 12.8 | ||||
| -43.2 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.5 (unknown, calibrated) | 3.5 | ||||
| -42.9 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.5 (unknown, calibrated) | 3.5 | ||||
| -41.8 | kJ/mol (basis unstated) | 0.05 | 18.4 (emf, cleaned_below_threshold) | 18.4 | ||||
| -36.5 | kJ/mol (basis unstated) | 0.05 | 18.4 (emf, cleaned_below_threshold) | 18.4 | ||||
| -36.5 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.5 (unknown, calibrated) | 3.5 | ||||
| -35.3 | kJ/mol (basis unstated) | 0.05 | 12.8 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated) | 12.8 | ||||
| -35.3 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.5 (unknown, calibrated) | 3.5 | ||||
| -24.06 | kJ/mol (basis unstated) | 0.005 | 16.8 (kems_vapour, calibrated) | 16.8 | ||||
| -24.06 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.005 | 3.5 (unknown, calibrated) | 3.5 | ||||
| -22.59 | kJ/mol (basis unstated) | 0.005 | 12.8 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated) | 12.8 | ||||
| -41.8 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.5 (unknown, calibrated) | 3.5 | ||||
| -22.59 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.005 | 3.5 (unknown, calibrated) | 3.5 |
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.
| Source | Entry | kJ/mol-atom | eV/atom | Space group | E above hull (kJ/mol-atom) | E above hull (eV/atom) | Theoretical |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Materials Project | mp-aaaabece | -12.058 | -0.12497 | Pm-3m | 0 | 0 | no |
| OQMD | oqmd-18132 | -19.098 | -0.197936 | Pm-3m | 0 | 0 | no |
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
- Jun Wang, Yuan Yuan, Xiongying Cheng, Qin Zhang, Rongjian Pan, Aitao Tang, Thermodynamic Assessment of the U-Sn System and Extension to the U-Zr-Sn System, J. Phase Equilib. Diffus. 42, 194-205 (2021). doi:10.1007/s11669-021-00872-2